Ha'aretz Columnist: Life In Israel Is One Big Party
Gideon Levy is a courageous Israeli columnist who tells his fellow citizens what they do not want to hear.
In today's piece he describes life in Israel as a party, unaffected by what the occupation is doing to millions of people just a few miles away.
"The Israelis don't pay any price for the injustice of the occupation, so the occupation will never end. It will not end a moment before the Israelis understand the connection between the occupation and the price they will be forced to pay. They will never shake it off on their own initiative, and why should they?
There is no "understanding among the Israelis about the connection between cause and effect - between occupation and terrorism." Israelis only know that "Arabs were born to kill, the whole world is against us, anti-Semitism determines how Israel is dealt with, and there is no connection between our actions and the price we pay."
"Neither an international blockade nor terrible bloodletting appear to be on the horizon, to our great fortune. So why should we worry? It's true that the world is beginning to scowl at Israel. So what? The world hates us anyway, Israelis are convinced. As long as they are not deprived of the world's pleasures, there is no reason to worry. Try to ask them why they are ostracized and you will immediately hear scorn about the world, rather than any self-criticism, God forbid. The Israelis are not only enjoying themselves. They are also very satisfied with themselves - over their level of morality and that of their army and state."
Nice.
"They will never shake it off on their own initiative, and why should they?"
"Nobody supports sanctions."
Nice.
July 18, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that "occupation" is the cause and terrorism is the effect, with the minor qualification that "occupation" is defined as the occupation of Israel by Jews.
If there were no Jews in Israel, then there would be no terrorism directed at Jews in Israel.
(This is what highly educated people call a tautology.)
For another example, on June 1, 1967, the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria (with material and logistical support from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria) would not have been preparing to obliterate the Jewish state of Israel, if the Jewish state of Israel had not occupied... Israel.
Likewise there would have been no Holocaust of European Jews if European Jews had not occupied... Europe.
So in general I think we can all agree with Mr. Rosenberg and his friends that there would be no terrorism directed at Jews anywhere on the planet Earth, if only there were no Jews anywhere, and it's only because Jews have continued to "occupy" space somewhere that so much terrorism has been directed at them throughout their long, long history.
July 19, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
That Gideon Levy is such a total kapo.
July 19, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. He's just dumb and lost.
July 20, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there were no Jews in Israel, then there would be no terrorism directed at Jews in Israel.
(This is what highly educated people call a tautology.)
Don't take this too seriously--I'm known in these parts to be a nitpicker and contrarian, but you are wrong to say that it is a tautology.
Take this example: Johnny is hunting for elephants in Central Park; There are no elephants in Central Park, Therefore (you say): It is a tautology to say that Johnny is not hunting for elephants in Central Park. But per hypothesis Johnny is indeed hunting for elephants in Central Park and yet the premises of the argument are NOT inconsistent. For example Johnny might not know there are no wild elephants in Central Park (ok, forget the zoo), etc.
A tautology is a sentence which is true in all cases. That is not the case in your example.
There is also an ambiguity in your exposition of the non-tautology. For example given that there were no Jews in Israel, under one interpretation, there might be terrorism aimed at Jews going on in Israel--e.g. cyber terrorism aimed at Jews living in the Upper East side being perpetrated from a Cyber Café in Tel Aviv.
This for example is a tautology "If it is raining, then either it is raining or there are wild elephants in Central Park", and that's because the sentence is true no matter what.
July 19, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about Johnny is trying to terrorize Big Foot? Big Foot occupies no space, therefore Johnny cannot possibly be trying to terrorizr Big Foot?. Get my point? NOT a tautology (see below)
July 19, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
About nitpicking...
Since Andrew Strat says "see below" when the comment to which he refers is actually above, he apparently doesn't know up from down, and a similar cognitive deficit manifests itself in his mis-translation of my tautology.
A correct translation into similar terms would be...
There are no elephants in Central Park, so it is a tautology to say that Johnny is not shooting elephants in Central Park.
Now someone unsophisticated enough to believe that he is discovering the tricks of sophists like Thrasymachus for the first time might say...
Johnny could be shooting elephants in Africa from Central Park with some kind of low-orbit rail-gun, and that's exactly the sort of trick Andrew Strat tries to play in his upside down comments.
Likewise with his substitution of "trying to shoot" or "trying to terrorize" for shoot and terrorize.
You might as well argue that "Johnny cannot construct a round square" may be untrue, because Johnny could be trying to construct one.
But no tautolgy remains true if the terms are distorted, and even "A = A" is false with the simple proviso that the second "A" means something different from the first.
July 19, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd give you a D+ for your effort to prove that the sentence is a tautology.
This is YOUR direct quote:
If there were no Jews in Israel, then there would be no terrorism directed at Jews in Israel.
Take note at the phrase "..there would be no terrorism directed at Jews in Israel"
Then you say OF THAT SENTENCE containing THAT intentional phrase:
(this is what highly educated people call a tautology)
But A college freshman who took a logic course and perhaps knows something about intentionality would observe that the phrase "there would be no terrorism directed at Jews in Israel" is indeed intentional. So what you were saying was a tautology (that there could NOT be anybody intending to terrorize Jews in Israel) is just not so. Clearly it is not a tautology given the fact that someone who did not know that no Jews resided in Israel could quite plausibly be directing terrorism at Jews in Israel. Granted that it would be a futile excercise.
The fact that there might not be any Jews in Israel does not imply that someone could not be trying (intending) to terrorize Jews in Israel.
It is a rather subtle point and it is said that this shows the opacity of intentional sentences, which is true enough.
I commend you for venturing into this treachorous semantic territory and boldly opining that intelligent people would call such a sentence a tautology but you did not pay sufficient attention to the intentional nature of the sentence and took it as purely extensional.
Johnny might well be directing his efforts towards shooting wild elephants in the North Pole even though there are none there to shoot.
Do you mean to imply that a person who directs all their actions towards pleasing God can only do so if there actually is a God? I don't think you want to say that do you?
Peace
July 19, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Strat is the sort of pitifully smug quant who redefined words like "risk" so that credit default swaps were absolutely safe.
(There's a fine example of Rootie's alter-ego administering a regular beat-down to a couple of those clowns on Ars Mathematica, where they "proved" that the Swindon roundabout is a beautiful convenience for drivers... although real drivers had selected it as the worst roundabout in the UK. Harharharhar!!!)
Likewise if you re-define "Jews" to include "imaginary Jews," then you can falsify my tautology, and if you re-define "A = A" so that the first A is a walrus and the second A is a chipmunk, then not even "A = A" would be a tautology.
Andrew Strat can't see the difference between terrorism directed at imaginary Jews and terrorism directed at real Jews, but unfortunately his pedantic obtuseness won't restore the lives of real Jews murdered by Islamic terrorists.
July 20, 2009 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
And just to bring this thread back into focus after Andrew Strat's silly interruption...
M.J. Rosenberg and his friends claim that the cause of Islamic terrorism in Israel is the occupation of the West Bank, conveniently forgetting 3000 years of persecution which preceded the occupation.
July 20, 2009 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: There is no "understanding among the Israelis about the connection between cause and effect - between occupation and terrorism."
MY COMMENT: Meshugenahs?
July 18, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you mean "meshuganas" because they don't believe the occupation of 67' lands is the cause of terrorism - then, its certainly not the Israelis who are Meshuganas. They actually remember what happened before 67' and the occupation.
July 20, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - attributed to Albert Einstein
July 18, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ - I have never visited Israel, much less sampled public attitudes there. What concerns me about this and some other pieces is their tendency to generalize about Israel and its inhabitants without providing documentation. It may be that the insouciance reported here is indeed typical of most Israelis, but conversely it might only typify a conspicuous minority. I certainly don't know which of these possibilities is true, but I believe it would be helpful to support generalizations with more than anecdotal evidence.
Having made clear that I don't know the answer, I would ask, "What is the evidence? What segment of public opinion does it reflect? What opposing attitudes, if any, also manifest themselves prominently among Israelis?"
It is hard to make judgments if those questions remain unanswered.
July 19, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no evidence Fred. Of course its generalizations, all generalizations made about millions of people, all of whom have different opinions. It's just the uninformed accusations of anti-semites, Nazis, people with psychological problems who need to attack others in order to feel better about themselves. They're not concerned with truth or facts, just with attacking Jews. Any lies are ok, since the bigoted mind cannot distinguish facts and fiction. In their disturbed minds these endlessly repeated lies eventually become truth. "there is no connection between our actions and the price we pay." You see. This statement really applies to the Palestinians, but they twist it so somehow it becomes applied to the Israelis, and the thousands of attacks by the Palestinians which are the cause of their suffering simply disappear from history and their minds. It's extremely well documented fact that the Palestinians began the war and are the ones who refuse peace, yet in their mind somehow it's the Israelis who are responsible for what they call the "occupation". Nothing new here. Lots of people analyzed the psychological problems behind the Nazi minds, and it's the same here. Basically mental illness. Sad, but at least no one is paying attention. (And yet, in their disturbed minds, they actually believe that people agree with them, and that they are really changing peoples' minds. But, of course, rational people are laughing at them.)
July 19, 2009 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love it, Mikep. All those talking points linked together with only punctuation marks to separate them.
Only problem, no one except a few rightwing Jews believe any of it.
July 19, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184872947&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
July 19, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred - The status in Israel is very fluid. Today, most Israelis do not agree that the occupation causes terrorism if you use the definition of occupation being the lands occupied after 67.
That Israelis don't understand cause and effect is of course just a ridiculous statement. They surely do. Most today just don't believe that terrorism is caused by the occupation after 67'.
Most Israelis fought or had relatives in the wars before the occupation (and after when Israel was still not recognized by the PLO or any other Arab nation) so to Israelis, Arab violence towards Jews in Israel is not unique to after 67, it has simply always existed. Therefore, for a long time they concluded that it is there existence that is the cause of violence towards them - which for years of course was a true statement.
After 67 and 73 the Arabs of course realized that Israel is not going anywhere. The War strategy has lost and now Arabs need to make up for what they lost in the previous wars. The occupation became a focus point and the new excuse for violence. The world started to listen especially since Israel decided to settle the territories.
However, most Israelis didnt "fall for it" - they still didnt believe it was about the occupation - that is until after the first intifada in which Israelis noticed that the nature of the violence had changed. World attitude (or the attitude of Israels allies) was also changed and became more aggressive. Was the intifada and today's violence really the cause by the continued occupation of 67' lands? Many began to believe it and the Oslo process began finally ending with Camp David and Taba. What Hamas, Jihad Islami and Fatah succeeded in doing during their terror campaign and second intifidah is return a lot of Israelis to the belief that this is not about 67' at all. Today's strong support among Palestinians for Hamas only strengthened this belief among Israelis. So today most Israelis have reverted back to believing that it is Israels existence that is the cause of the violence and not 67' and certainly not the settlements (most see these as removable anyways - sinai, gaza just examples). It is the reason why Bibi can play his political games and still receive so much support from Israelis for demanding that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state - many on here say this is a ridiculous request and to most it might be, but to the only people in the world to whom it really matters it means everything today - it is what they need to feel that this is not about their existence in all of Israel but about certain lands that can be given back for real peace.
July 20, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred - There is no way to quantify the question you asked. I assume you know that and asked the question as a way of poking fun at Levy's generalization. Nonetheless, I don't find Levy's perspective to be far off the mark. In my own visits to Israel I do not gauge attitudes by public opinion polls, I do so by listening to the TV, reading the Hebrew press, talking to people in restaurants and cafes, hearing the talk at shul etc. Admittedly this is unscientific but I believe it as good or better way to grasp attitudes as any so called scientific method.
July 20, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The attitude of Israelis and the Israeli state is, and always has been, one of arrogant dismissal of any criticism.
I found this in many countries in Africa over many years, wherever Israelis worked, (often for Solel Boneh) or for their local consulate, and subsequently in many European countries, wherever Israelis holiday - one encounters an arrogance of claimed superiority that is hard to explain and difficult to rationalize.
You can find a flavor of it here in this very column.
July 19, 2009 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israeli paranoia and its overcompensating bravado is a function of having been in survival mode for fifty-one years. We would all be a little testy and strange if we had guns trained on us 24/7 for such a long time. The cockiness is an elaborately-mutated coping mechanism.
But the hyped-up defensiveness of the Israeli right cannot go on forever. Something has to break somewhere. When it does, the world witnesses destructive sorties such as the recent events in Gaza. Israel is painting itself into a corner.
The cognitive dissonance of officially tolerating racial profiling in housing settlements while espousing democracy is a symptom of Israel's desperation. But that is nothing new. The Israelis have been living with that since the 1930s.
Something has to give somewhere. Our President prescribes a kind of political chemotherapy to disable the dysfunctional paranoia. We audaciously hope this can be undertaken without killing the patient.
July 19, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israeli Fantasies: a greater Israel with all of Jerusalem as its capital. More Jews, More Land, and Less Arabs.
Palestinian Fantasies: returning to the way it was before 1948. More Land, More Arabs, and Less Jews.
Obama needs to be the one to tell both parties to grow up, Santa Claus does not exist.
July 19, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ - In my comments above, I asked for some quantitative data on your assertion that "Life In Israel Is One Big Party". You haven't answered yet. How many Israelis exhibit that attitude? How many do not? What is the evidence supporting that attribution in either case? I don't know the answer, which is why I asked, but I believe it's important not to engage in sweeping generalizations in the absence of conclusive evidence that a particular attitude is nearly universal.
July 19, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Google "Israel 2009 election results."
Let us know what you find!
July 19, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better yet, take that first trip to Israel.
July 19, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a question. If I write that "Russians Distrust America, Despite Obama," would I have to tell you how many, where they live, what their names are.
You would only ask for this data about the subject of Israel, about which people seem to lose any semblance of reality.
The piece was by a prominent Israeli columnist. Write him and ask him how many Israelis share his view.
I'm sure he'll tell you the exact number. But, as the poll I post to abovetestifies, only 6% of Israelis approve of Obama while 80% liked Bush. That tells you something.
July 19, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
only 6% of Israelis approve of Obama while 80% liked Bush. That tells you something.
It doesn't tell me how many think life is one big party.
How many think that way - roughly, as in "most", or "a subsstantial minority" or "almost everyone", or "a tiny minority"?
Your title implies that it's a majority. Is it? How do you know?
Poll results indicating that about half of Israelis disapprove of Obama doesn't tell me how many think life is a party.
July 19, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silly Fred.
Your lil' beef is with Haaretz' far lefty columnist, Gideon Levy, not MJ.
Given your abysmal ignorance about the issues that have so recently come to your "attention", I would suggest that you start to read the Israeli media yourself in order to understand the mileu that so "concerns" you. Opinions exclusively informed by hasbara don't count as knowledge when it comes to the ME.
I've been investing efforts to get @ the big/little/complex picture of Israel since Operation Defensive Shield and it's high time that you embark on similiar efforts to educate yourself rather than pout about MJ. Despite the fact that such jejune kvetching is a very popular activity among some TPMCafe regulars....it's often mere pique.
(There actually was a recent poll about how Israelis feel about their circumstances. Google it, if you really "care" about such things as "quantitative data". Unfortunately, since the poll didn't ask the burning question: "Do you or do you not consider living in Israel to be one big party?", you will be forced to extrapolate from the findings.
If the poll did include such a query, the highest number of positive responses would be from residents of Tel Aviv....that's sort of an "inside" joke, btw. TA is often mentioned in a sneering manner similiar to the "tones" of American "opinon elites" commentary about San Francisco )
In addition to Haaretz, I highly recommend regular reading of the news orgs of Israeli right; as ably represented by Imra, Arutz Sheva and the Jerusalem Post (aimed at Americans, ex and current). They provide more context.
Some would put Ynetnews in the same "rightwing" category although given the political climate in Israel, it's news reporting, like the WSJ of old, tends to be fairly straightforward. Ynet's OpEd columnists are very rightwing although not exclusively so. They did recently fire their one token lefty "regular" in the person of the stairist "B. Michael" but invite the distaff side to opine on occasion.
Stop being such a lazy whiner and do some due diligence ie "research" on your own dime.
July 19, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
My humble apologies for being a "lazy whiner".
What's the answer to the question I asked?
July 19, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
A well overdue riposte to Fred Blogs who inevitably writes like an injured virgin standing on one foot who innocently pretends not to understand the baser, basic instincts of mankind, but who plaintively, and possibly fraudulently, requests tuition from more experienced and sophisticated commentators. What BS.
July 19, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No-one has yet answered my question, but instead responded to it by attacking me. I believe that reflects poorly on my accusers, but I'll let others judge.
In the meantime, if anyone does have some information of the kind I asked for, I'd be interested in reading it.
July 19, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awwwwwwwwww, Freddie dear.
The answer to your question is yours to find, little grasshopper.
Meanwhile, more on my prior instructions/suggestions for acheiving minimal credibility on ME issues:
Here's a timely example of why it's critical to survey the breadth of the Israeli media.
Context; Haaretz has been running a series of articles about a recent explosion of a "Hezbollah arms cache" in a village about 20 miles from the Blue Line. This incident is being used by Israel in order to counter the voluminous data of Israeli violations of US/Israeli/French (speaking for Lebanon)- crafted UN res 1701 being reported to the UN by UNIFIL and the government of Lebanon.
The latest Haaretz' article claimed that Israel had informed UNIFIL of the cache "months ago". Oops. Imra reports that the IDF is rejecting that claim out of hand:
Sunday, July 19, 2009 IDF did not pass intelligence information to UNIFIL regarding the Lebanese weapons cache that exploded
Following Report Concerning Weapons Cache in s. Lebanon
IDF Spokesperson's Office July 19th, 2009
IDF Spokesperson Update
Following a report published in the Israeli daily newspaper, "Ha'aretz",concerning the detonation of a weapons cache in southern Lebanon last week, the IDF Spokesperson wishes to stress that the IDF did not pass intelligence information to UNIFIL regarding the cache.
The IDF will continue to assist UNIFIL in implementing UN resolution 1701.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=44600
One might wonder why the IDF has issued the above as the original Haaretz' claims reinforce the Israeli message that UNIFIL is on the side of the Lebanese instead of Israel. When seen in the context of the continuous consultations between the IDF, UNIFIL and the LAF, the allegations could be easily and vehemently refuted by the latter parties. Another sticky problem could arise if questions about how is it that Israel could gather such intelligence without being in clear violation of the afore- mentioned 1701.
Although the American media has ignored the whole business of Israeli violations of 1701, the seriousness of the official complaints about Israeli spy cells and overflights have been raised in every possible venue by the Lebanese. Joe Biden got an earful from the current president of Lebanon during his campaign whistle stop for March 14. UNIFIL's official record keeping/reporting of Israeli violations by land, sea and air is adding to the already impressive catalogue of Israeli disdain for international agreements they have signed up for.
PS. Imra also has a statement from Hamas' rep in Syria, Khaled Masha'al declaing that "Hamas won't oppose peace efforts"
(queue up your copies of that 1988 Hamas charter, kiddies)
FYI, this LATimes article about the dizzying, competing claims about the exploding cache of somethings on the 3rd anniversary of the onset of Operation Just Reward can be found here:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/07/lebanon-different-sides-tell-different-stories-regarding-explosion.html
Things in southern Lebanon are really escalating and threatening to get way out-of-hand due to this incident. UNIFIL would be wise to assign troops from participating countries without perceived agendas to investigate the incident. The French are not among them. Better, the Spanish or South Koreans or....any country without a colonialist history (and subsequent interference a la Chirac) in Lebanon.
July 19, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your response to me was juvenile. The remainder of your comment is something I can't judge except to say that it is irrelevant to the topic of this post on the "one big party" nature of Israeli attitudes.
July 19, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But how many Germans agreed with Sally Bowles? Was she speaking only for herself or for most young people in Weinmar.
But wasn't she American?
These things are quite maddening. Freddy Mercury said, "we are the champions." But of what. Can someone tell me (I'm holding my breath) what he and his ilk were champions of.
They sure weren't my champions. Please answer my question.
July 19, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE now prefer the term "jejune", Fred.
As I clearly stated, my example was provided to encourage your efforts in education through self-directed research in order to do some damage control to your growing reputation as an ignorant hasbarachik.
I graciously accept your belated thankyou, apology and appreciation for my sincere, open-minded and objective efforts on your behalf.
July 19, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're fooling yourself if you consider your comments witty, but as I said before, I'll let others judge.
July 19, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dearest Fred.
I've already been and am judged here. Just as you are.
Welcome to TEH hottest kitchen in the whole durn Cafe. (You know what comes next....)
Having a minimal familiarity with the facts is required for credibility. Whining, toddleresque footstamping that others supply them on demand is counterproductive to establishing the same.
Neener, neener.
July 19, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, I should stop footstamping. Lally, my earlier comment to the effect that insults aimed at me reflected poorly on the insulters is true, but it is a relatively mild rebuke, and you probably shouldn't have become so upset. You are wrong in suggesting that I demanded anything. Rather, I asked that those making a claim about "one big party" in Israel provide some evidence to back it up, without requiring me to dig up the evidence myself. Fortunately, a few participants have since been kind enough to provide some of that information, so you can consider yourself off the hook.
July 20, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm having some unseemly fun with you, Freddie, old boy.
Fortunately, a few participants have since been kind enough to provide some of that information, so you can consider yourself off the hook.
Was the information provided the "quantitative data" you demanded? Are you now satisfied with MJ's imaginary poll? That would certainly be entirely consistant with the hallucinatory aspect of your assumptions about anything to do with the ME.
Poor thing.
You don't even understand that you're the fish in this exchange....
July 20, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't lose gracefully, do you Lally?
(I do thank several participants for addressing my question. MJ was not among them)
July 20, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, MJ misread the poll results he cited, because he was holding the paper upside down.
July 20, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know when you are out of your league, do you Freddy?
Please provide the "quantative data" that has answered your burning question. Or have you suddenly decided to adjust your rigid stance and now perfectly satisfied with ancedotal evidence?
If it's the latter example, I congratualate you for discarding your standards altogether.
July 20, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct in acknowledging that others have addressed my question. Their answers have tended to confirm a point I made earlier.
As for the "out of your league" comment, I see it as an evasion of substantive discourse, and that's the only meaning I assign to it. You may be under the illusion that throngs of people are watching our exchanges in the middle of a thread that has gone long past this point. The number is probably zero or close to it, because I doubt that others care what you and I say to each other. If you want to keep commenting here because having the last word is important to you, go ahead. Chances are I'll ignore you and that no-one else will ponder what you write or even see it.
What I probably will do, later, is comment at the end of the thread to give credit to those who addressed the issue I raised, and to discuss the conclusions I believe we can draw from my questions and their responses.
July 20, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred.
Game. Set. Match.
Since you have surmised that the number of those with continuing interest in this thread has declined to: probably zero or close to it, that's the perfect audience for your prospective opus.
You be sure to cut and paste any quotes with pristine attention to accuracy and include the relevent links, now, Fred. Even if you have radically....er.... adjusted your criteria for what sort of evidence you now deem to be credible, it's critical to at least display a minimal, token adherence to some sort of standard or another when "crediting" other commenters.
You "probably" don't really need to reply to me.....;~{)
July 20, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Suppose someone said "the American people are resilient" and you asked...Tell me who is and who is not resilient. Which Americans are resilient and which are not? How many Americans have to be resilient and what positions do they have to occupy in society in order for the statement that American people are resilient be true. See what I mean?
We make statements about large groups of people all the time. We have to. If we were not allowed to do so unless we could detail the specifics we could not talk about groups of people at all. But talking about groups of people is indispensible to our way of life (see Wittgenstein).
I agree that if someone talks about a group of people in such a way that it mischaracterizes them, then we can say that what they say is false. But that is true of an individual too. Suppose I say so-and-so is a liar and you respond by asking me to tell you all the times so-and-so lied and how many lies does one have to tell in order to be classified as a liar, you would find that an odd request. A liar is one who is prone to lie.
When Robert Reich or some such says The American People are fed up with all this corporate welfare, nobody would say "which Americans, how many, where do they live, and what is their social status?" You are asking too much of social discourse of macro judgments such as "Israelis think that Life is one Big Party". It is disingenuous of you to demand the details. It is a macro observation based on the summation of individual observations.
When we go through life making one individual observation after another, we don't generally keep track of each individual observation. These observations are soon forgotten for the most part. But if some observations suggest a patter, then we may acquire a macro observations such as "women like to take care of their appearance more than men do"... How do I know? Well from a lifetime of experience on planet earth, ok?
July 20, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but Andrew, these rules do not apply to Israel. Your lifetime of experience on Planet Earth
matters not when faced with the well=-trained (is Pavlov still alive) hasbara nuts.
My father argued with them in the 1930's when they justified the Moscow trials and opposed US entry into WW2. Then the line from Moscow chained and they were on the same side as my dad. Then in 1945, it changed again and.....
This is the same mentality.
July 20, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "In today's piece he describes life in Israel as a party..."
Title: Cabaret Soundtrack - Cabaret lyrics
MASTER OF CEREMONIES:
"Meine Damen und Herren, Madames et Messieurs,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Und now, once again, Frulein Sally Bowls!"
SALLY BOWLES:
"What good is sittin' alone in your room
Come hear the music play,
Life is a cabaret old chum
Come to the cabaret."
SOURCE - http://www.lyrics007.com/Cabaret%20Soundtrack%20Lyrics/Cabaret%20Lyrics.html
July 19, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
But how many Germans agreed with Sally Bowles? Was she speaking only for herself or for most young people in Weinmar.
But wasn't she American?
These things are quite maddening. Freddy Mercury said, "we are the champions." But of what. Can someone tell me (I'm holding my breath) what he and his ilk were champions of.
They sure weren't my champions. Please answer my question.
July 19, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Sally Bowles was an American entertainer in pre-WWII Germmany. The irony in Cabaret resided in the "one big party" atmosphere inside the cabaret while Germany descended into militarism and brutality outside. In that sense, there is some relevance in the attribution of a party mentality to some Israelis eager to ignore a much more threatening external reality. I'm trying to get some sense of how widespread that self-delusion is, but so far, no-one has helped me out.
July 19, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the Shtuyot poll. Just out.
Question asked of 800 Israelis.
Is life in Israel is one big party.
81%--It is one big party.
18%--It's my party and I'll vry if I want to.
American taxpayers:
100% It's your party and I'll cry if I want to...You would cry to if it happened to you.
July 20, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Below is a quote on how Freddie Mercury viewed the song, how he came up with the idea for it, and how the public viewed it after its release.
“ Certainly it's a relationship that could be, but I was thinking about football [soccer] when I wrote it. I wanted a participation song, something that the fans could latch on to. It was aimed at the masses; I thought we'd see how they took it. It worked a treat. When we performed it at a private concert in London, the fans actually broke into a football chant between numbers. Of course, I've given it more theatrical subtlety than an ordinary football chant. You know me. I certainly wasn't thinking about the press when I wrote it. I never think about the British music press these days. It was really meant to be offered the musicians the same as the fans. I suppose it could also be construed as my version of "I Did It My Way." We have made it, and it certainly wasn't easy. No bed of roses as the song says. And it's still not easy.
-Freddie Mercury (1978)[1] ”
The next few lines are once again a quote by Freddie on how society received the song.
“ I have to win people over, otherwise it's not a successful gig. It's my job to make sure people have a good time. That's part of my duty. It's all to do with feeling in control. That song "We Are the Champions" has been taken up by football fans because it's a winners' song. I can't believe that somebody hasn't written a new song to overtake it
July 20, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This guy makes Paris Hilton look like a scholar!!
July 20, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most likely because he's dead.
July 21, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...Of the world." It's the very next line in the song, but you would have had to keep listening.
July 21, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose. But his manner of evangelizing is such that I betcha about ninety percent of the citizentry of Sodom and Gomorrah find Citoyen Levy insufferable -- quite independent of the fact that they happen to think him dead wrong.
If it were possible to be a "moral show-off," wouldn't it look rather like that?
Whatever such a performance is to be classified as, exactly, it certainly irritates me when militant extremists for Zion point essentially the same rhetorical weapon at my Uncle Sam. As they do all the time.
Mais que sçay-je?
Happy days.
July 19, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am reliably advised that FP is a new recruit from Hasbara central in TA. Don't be fooled by the silly pic and name. Add to list.
July 20, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did someone hack the Haaretz piece?
I clicked the link and after seeing it for a brief second, the piece was replaced by some awful malware website telling me that my computer was infected with viruses and unless I clicked right away on their link, something awful was bound to happen.
This was funny - I'm running Ubuntu Linux which doesn't have a virus problem and certainly nothing like the Windows virus I was being "informed" about.
I exited my browser, went back to the site and now I could read the whole article, but the page never finishes loading. Instead my status line tells me incesssantly "Transferring data from gail.hit.gemius.pl". Another time, it said "Transferring data from" some numeric IP address.
Anybody else seeing this?
July 20, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I often see this from the Haaretz site and it happens to me with both IE Explorer and Firefox. I've written to Haaretz about it and they write back "they know nothing about it". It happens about once every 20 visits and my spyware/virus software never finds anything on my computer to account for it.
July 20, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It happened to me too. Never did get to read the article.
July 20, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This article by MJ is informative, thought-provoking, and probably unfair. In relaying Levy’s opinion piece, it offers insight into a troubling phenomenon within Israeli society, while painting with a brush so broad that it appears to impugn that society as an entity. Negative stereotypes are regrettable, even in a good cause. Is Israeli insouciance so nearly universal that one can attribute it not to many Israelis or even most Israelis, but simply to “the Israelis”, as repeatedly claimed, thereby denying the existence of significant countervailing attitudes?
Perhaps, but one needs evidence on the extent of the phenomenon. When I asked, a few found my question offensive (one attempted to infantilize me), but they were the exception. Several participants – lh25, jdledell, Carey Rowland, mikep, and others – responded with a serious effort to address the issue. In aggregate, their comments reinforced my suspicion that Levy and MJ were reporting an impression based on anecdotal evidence, that insouciance was common but probably less common than a defensive, siege mentality, and that its application to “the Israelis” without modifying adjectives was unjustified.
Is this distinction important? To some extent, yes, both in the interest of responsible journalism, and as a means of achieving the journalist’s objectives. When a society’s members perceive themselves besieged, criticism that indiscriminately targets all among them tends to reinforce the siege mentality – not necessarily the most desirable result. We observed this counterproductive effect elsewhere in the Middle East not too many years ago, when George W. Bush included Iran in the “Axis of Evil”, thereby marginalizing pro-Western, democratic elements within that society. In contrast, our more recent policies have focused on commending those same Iranian constituencies so as to avoid further marginalization.
Levy is in Israel, but MJ is an American speaking through an America-based forum. In that sense, MJ will not enjoy Levy’s insider status, and his commentary is more likely to be seen by at least some of his readers as an unfocused attack on “the Israelis” rather than a criticism aimed at those Israelis who deserve it. This is unfortunate, because the criticisms warrant all the attention that a good journalistic effort can achieve. In my view, journalism is most effective when it strives to be accurate rather than overzealous.
July 21, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink