Recently I was rummaging through the living mess of papers in my office--my nachlass, however hard-driven, will not be a hard drive--when I discovered a fading sheet I had not seen in decades. It was a copy of a letter that was given to me by a little man in the municipal hall in Hebron in 1980. I had traveled to Hebron to look into an incident that occurred a few days earlier on Purim, a triumphalist holiday on which Jews are enjoined to revel in inversions and to drink themselves out of their capacity to distinguish between good and evil. In the course of their bacchanal, some of the settlers at Beit Hadassah, the formerly Jewish house in the center of town that they were claiming for themselves, had opened their windows and urinated on Palestinians in the street below. The mayor of Hebron convened a public meeting for the victims of the abuse to tell their stories. It was there that the little man rose to express his grievance. To demonstrate the ugliness of what was done to him, he read from an old letter written in Hebrew on the stationery of a metalworking company in Jerusalem. It stated (this is my translation): “To Whom It May Concern: I the undersigned, Moses Joseph ben Jacob Ezra, born in Hebron, hereby declare that the family of Rajib Hassan Al Badr, with whom we lived in the same quarter in Hebron, protected my family in [the riots of] 1929 and again in [the riots of] 1936, and until 1947, while we were still in Hebron, we enjoyed good neighborly relations and constant protection by the Al Badr family generally. I would be deeply grateful for any human assistance that might be extended to them.” So it was the scion of that good and brave family whom the yarmulked hooligans had soiled. I remembered this wrenching document a few weeks ago when Yedioth Ahronoth posted a video on its website of a Purim party in Sheikh Jarrah, an Arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem, at which religious militants boorishly sang a song of praise to the memory of Baruch Goldstein, who slaughtered twenty-nine Palestinians at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron: “Dr. Goldstein. Dr. Goldstein, there is no one like you in the whole world.” The stone house in which the punks dishonored their tradition with an anthem to murder had recently belonged to the El Ghawis, a Palestinian family that was expelled from it last August.
Sheikh Jarrah is a place with a run-down but real magic, rather like Naples. You can still see the glory beneath the grime, the fine imperial picturesque--the porticos and the gardens of old Palestine, the material elegance of the Muslim gentry in the calm between the storms. There is a mosque at the tomb of a medieval Muslim saint named Hussein ibn Isa Al Jarrah, and nearby it is the tomb of Simon the Just, the high priest in Jerusalem around 200 B.C.E. and according to legend the founder of the Jewish liturgy, whose sacerdotal splendor was described swooningly by Ben Sira; and there is the Shepherd Hotel, a grand villa built by the mufti of Jerusalem, once inhabited by George Antonius, and in the 1980s acquired by a rich Jewish bingo-king in Florida for the purpose of expelling Palestinians from the area and installing Jews; and there is the American Colony Hotel, whose bougainvillea has often given me asylum from the respective fervors of my brothers and sisters in the western part of the city. In 1948, Arab forces in Sheikh Jarrah ambushed a convoy of Jewish doctors and nurses on their way to the hospital on Mount Scopus and committed a massacre. Sheikh Jarrah came under Israeli control in 1967, and a few years later Jewish groups went to court with old Jewish deeds to various properties, even though no Jews had lived there since 1948. The court upheld their ownership, but ruled that the Palestinians who resided there could remain as long as they paid rent. The Palestinian families disputed the authenticity of the Jewish documents, and refused to pay. They were finally evicted this past year, and the drunken disciples of Dr. Goldstein moved in.
The dream of reversing history has been a cause of both greatness and depravity. It is right for people not to acquiesce in their own wretchedness, to reject all the quietisms and the fatalisms that teach them to do nothing for themselves. Zionism owed its moral and historical force in large measure to its refusal to accept the irreversibility of Jewish exile, and its attendant misery; and the national self-reliance now exemplified for the Palestinians by Salam Fayyad--in a culture of jusqu’au-boutisme, the technocrat is the revolutionary--represents a similar refusal of historical passivity. But not everything can, or should, be reversed. Sometimes there is wisdom also in acceptance, and in the power that it confers to move on. In the name of justice, one may destroy peace, and forget that peace, too, is an element of justice. The idea of beginning again is often a savage idea. Since the Palestinian right of return, and its premise that restoration is preferable to reconciliation, would undo the Jewish state, Israel is right to deny it. But if, in the name of moral realism, and so that they do not delude themselves with catastrophic fantasies of starting over, Palestinians are not to be granted a right to return to what was theirs before 1948, then neither should such a right be granted to Jews. When Jews fled Sheikh Jarrah, they fled to a Jewish state, which should have been worth the loss of their property; and the same would have been true of the Palestinians, if their Arab brethren had allowed the state of Palestine to come into being. But the lunatic Jews who insist that a Jew must live anywhere a Jew ever lived do not see that they, too, are re-opening 1948 and the legitimacy of what it established. Why does the Israeli government allow the argument for a unified Jerusalem to be mistaken for the heartless revanchism of these settlers? Whatever arrangements about Jerusalem are eventually made in a peace agreement, and I no longer expect to see one in my lifetime, Jerusalem will remain both the capital of Israel and a demographically mottled city. It makes no sense to show contempt for the people with whom you are destined to live. It is not only cruel, it is stupid. So the dispossession of the El Ghawis is a disgrace. And a Jewish disgrace, because it was Simon the Just, the legendary leader buried in an ancient cave not far from the El Ghawis’ house, who famously taught that one of the things which supports the world in existence is the practice of kindness.
Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic.
Print
jack: one small further note:
...Well, Simon the Just was a saintly, man who did hold Jews to a higher standard...
I missed the point of *your* noting that Simon the Just held Jews to a higher standard. I focused on his injunction. Noting that though, I don't see how it helps your claim.
Assuming it's so, it seems a fairly specialized bit of knowledge that Wieseltier makes no specific reference to--ie not readily apparent to his readers, I don't think. So, again, I see nothing in his text that calls for a higher standard of conduct for Jews.
If there is, where is it, and what does it call for, not expected of others?
jack: one small further note:
...Well, Simon the Just was a saintly, man who did hold Jews to a higher standard...
I missed the point of *your* noting that Simon the Just held Jews to a higher standard. I focused on his injunction. Noting that though, I don't see how it helps your claim.
Assuming it's so, it seems a fairly specialized bit of knowledge that Wieseltier makes no specific reference to--ie not readily apparent to his readers, I don't think. So, again, I see nothing in his text that calls for a higher standard of conduct for Jews.
If there is, where is it, and what does it call for, not expected of others?
TNRs resident (Zio-)Nazi
"Zionazi" is a revolting expression drawn from rabid, anti-Semitic hate sites. It is defined as anti-Semitism by the EUMC draft. It is a disgusting manner of pissing upon the Shoah's actual victims. TNR should be ashamed of its appearance on the TNR blog.
West Bank settlement is a colonial enterprise, a form of colonization.
More nonsense from the RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne. West Bank settlement may be claimed just compensation to the Jews for the far greater properties and assets confiscated from the Jews of the Muslim world. (Nevertheless, it is within the right of the Israeli majority to cede any such claim, however just.)
Noga, nil carborundum i ... view full comment
TNRs resident (Zio-)Nazi
"Zionazi" is a revolting expression drawn from rabid, anti-Semitic hate sites. It is defined as anti-Semitism by the EUMC draft. It is a disgusting manner of pissing upon the Shoah's actual victims. TNR should be ashamed of its appearance on the TNR blog.
West Bank settlement is a colonial enterprise, a form of colonization.
More nonsense from the RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne. West Bank settlement may be claimed just compensation to the Jews for the far greater properties and assets confiscated from the Jews of the Muslim world. (Nevertheless, it is within the right of the Israeli majority to cede any such claim, however just.)
Noga, nil carborundum illegitemi.
Please excuse the poor formatting above.
TNRs resident (Zio-)Nazi
"Zionazi" is a revolting expression drawn from rabid, anti-Semitic hate sites. It is defined as anti-Semitism by the EUMC draft. It is a disgusting manner of pissing upon the Shoah's actual victims. TNR should be ashamed of its appearance on the TNR blog.
Noga, nil carborundum illegitemi.
RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne: West Bank settlement is a colonial enterprise, a form of colonization.
More nonsense from the RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne. West Bank settlement may be claimed just compensation to the Jews for the far greater properties and assets confiscated from the Jews of the Muslim world. (Nevertheless, ... view full comment
Please excuse the poor formatting above.
TNRs resident (Zio-)Nazi
"Zionazi" is a revolting expression drawn from rabid, anti-Semitic hate sites. It is defined as anti-Semitism by the EUMC draft. It is a disgusting manner of pissing upon the Shoah's actual victims. TNR should be ashamed of its appearance on the TNR blog.
Noga, nil carborundum illegitemi.
RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne: West Bank settlement is a colonial enterprise, a form of colonization.
More nonsense from the RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne. West Bank settlement may be claimed just compensation to the Jews for the far greater properties and assets confiscated from the Jews of the Muslim world. (Nevertheless, it is within the right of the Israeli majority to cede any such claim, however just.)
basman
“jack: one small further note:
...Well, Simon the Just was a saintly, man who did hold Jews to a higher standard...
I missed the point of *your* noting that Simon the Just held Jews to a higher standard. I focused on his injunction. Noting that though, I don't see how it helps your claim.
Assuming it's so, it seems a fairly specialized bit of knowledge that Wieseltier makes no specific reference to--ie not readily apparent to his readers, I don't think. So, again, I see nothing in his text that calls for a higher standard of conduct for Jews.
If there is, where is it, and what does it call for, not expected of others?”
Simeon the Just’s chief maxim was "The world exists throug ... view full comment
basman
“jack: one small further note:
...Well, Simon the Just was a saintly, man who did hold Jews to a higher standard...
I missed the point of *your* noting that Simon the Just held Jews to a higher standard. I focused on his injunction. Noting that though, I don't see how it helps your claim.
Assuming it's so, it seems a fairly specialized bit of knowledge that Wieseltier makes no specific reference to--ie not readily apparent to his readers, I don't think. So, again, I see nothing in his text that calls for a higher standard of conduct for Jews.
If there is, where is it, and what does it call for, not expected of others?”
Simeon the Just’s chief maxim was "The world exists through three things: the Law, worship, and beneficence" (Pirkei Avoth 1:2),
http://www.ncjh.org/downloads/QuotesPirkeAvot.doc
Simon the Just…used to say,
“Upon three things the world stands:
On Torah, on (Divine) Service, and on Deeds of Lovingkindness.”
Pirke Avot 1:2
The Pirke Avot is a Jewish classic text even for non believers like myself. I love to read it from time to time. He probably assumed that many of at least his Jewish readers would familiar with this saying.
“RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne: West Bank settlement is a colonial enterprise, a form of colonization.
More nonsense from the RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne. West Bank settlement may be claimed just compensation to the Jews for the far greater properties and assets confiscated from the Jews of the Muslim world. (Nevertheless, it is within the right of the Israeli majority to cede any such claim, however just.)”
I agree with your last sentence, though not with your view of the settlements as “just compensation….”
Only a legitimate court of law, either national or international could offer “just compensation.”
In any case, the settlements are neither a “colonial enterprise” nor ... view full comment
“RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne: West Bank settlement is a colonial enterprise, a form of colonization.
More nonsense from the RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne. West Bank settlement may be claimed just compensation to the Jews for the far greater properties and assets confiscated from the Jews of the Muslim world. (Nevertheless, it is within the right of the Israeli majority to cede any such claim, however just.)”
I agree with your last sentence, though not with your view of the settlements as “just compensation….”
Only a legitimate court of law, either national or international could offer “just compensation.”
In any case, the settlements are neither a “colonial enterprise” nor “just compensation.” They were a practical means of securing the land on the Wets bank after the Arabs rejected a peace offer in exchange for the territory. It was always understood that it would be returned for a just peace accord.
The whole settlement process got out of control which is why certain land swaps is more practical than moving those closest to the green line.
East Jerusalem though is another matter which Netanyahu unsurprisingly fucked up. There was no need to make it an issue at this time.
JDyer
They were a practical means of securing the land on the Wets bank after the Arabs rejected a peace offer in exchange for the territory.
I agree this was a factor - cf the Allon plan.
In any case, the settlements are neither a “colonial enterprise” nor “just compensation.”
I don't agree. The Mizrahim are justifiably bitter the international discussion turns on compensation for the Palestinians and little on compensation for the Mizrahim. The Arabs imposed dhimmitude and semi-apartheid on the Mizrahim for 1,400 years, and (it could be argued) in recompense owe the Jews
- a country, if necessary Jordan-to-Med for security or Mizrahi asset offset
- a completion ... view full comment
JDyer
They were a practical means of securing the land on the Wets bank after the Arabs rejected a peace offer in exchange for the territory.
I agree this was a factor - cf the Allon plan.
In any case, the settlements are neither a “colonial enterprise” nor “just compensation.”
I don't agree. The Mizrahim are justifiably bitter the international discussion turns on compensation for the Palestinians and little on compensation for the Mizrahim. The Arabs imposed dhimmitude and semi-apartheid on the Mizrahim for 1,400 years, and (it could be argued) in recompense owe the Jews
- a country, if necessary Jordan-to-Med for security or Mizrahi asset offset
- a completion of the population exchange.
The whole settlement process got out of control which is why certain land swaps is more practical than moving those closest to the green line
I agree. But the spanner in the works is the hypocritical insistence of Israeli Arabs in the triangle and elsewhere, that they remain Israeli.
East Jerusalem though is another matter which Netanyahu unsurprisingly fucked up. There was no need to make it an issue at this time
I disagree. Netanyahu has done nothing to change earlier Israeli governments' policies towards E Jerusalem. It was Obama, not Netanyahu, who made it an issue, for reasons both of his primary anti-Zionism and as a club to force Israel to acquiesce to a nuclear Iran.
Only a legitimate court of law, either national or international could offer “just compensation.”
I disagree. Courts of law and international institutions have done little to nothing to protect Jews from death, were impotent during the Holocaust, and now are under even firmer control by the leftist-Islamic coalition. Israel and Jews generally can never rely upon them for protection or justice. That's why it is a primary tenet of Zionism that never again should Jews depend upon the gentile for protection.
It was always understood that it would be returned for a just peace accord.
No, it wasn't. Israel as a whole and even many individual Israelis (in ther own minds) have always wavered between (a) keep the teritories for security and (b) cede them for a weak promise of peace and democracy. Immediately after 1967, Israelis assumed (a); then Khartoum's "three no's" pushed them to (b). In the run-up to Oslo they veered back to (a). Evidence of Arab bad faith (Gaza, Karine-A) has recently pushed them to a mid-point, "We'll use the territories as a bargaining chip, ceding them only once we are convinced the West Bank will not become another Gaza."
Even as early as 1967, I listened to an Israeli taxi-driver argue with himself: "We have a tiger by the tail. If we cede the territories, they'll be used once again to attack us. But if we retain them, we'll forever have undemocratic conrol over another people."
East Jerusalem is another matter. Barak made an extremely generous offer; its rejection shocked Israelis, and they ae unlikely to make the same offer again. In the end, many Israelis are now convinced that no matter the Israeli leader and no matter the extent of concessions, the Palestinians and their new Shi'a backers will pocket all concessions and continue the war of annihilation.
Ironically, it has often been suggested that hawkish leaders, as Begin and Sharon and Bibi, may be ideologically better-positioned to make concessions without bitterly splitting the Israeli electorate. That is, like Reagan's and Nixon's overtures to Russia and China, the centre-right can bring along both left and right, while a centre-left leader can only bring along the left. Concessions might, however, push Shas out of Bibi's coalition and bring in Kadima. It may be that Obama's neo-colonalist intent has been just such "regime change" in Jerusalem.
Apologies. I meant to say:
Apologies. I meant to say:
"TNRs resident (Zio-)Nazi"
ndmckenziie is a Jew baiter. He says these things in the way David Irving talks about the Holocaust. His record on these blogs is not an honorable one, and I wouldn't pay him the compliment of being insulted by anything he has to say.
"TNRs resident (Zio-)Nazi"
ndmckenziie is a Jew baiter. He says these things in the way David Irving talks about the Holocaust. His record on these blogs is not an honorable one, and I wouldn't pay him the compliment of being insulted by anything he has to say.
If Israel were to incorporate the territories and grant the inhabitants full political rights, something it could do without a "peace treaty" as by definition there would be no one left with whom to negotiate that treaty, it would have a colorable claim of right under customary international law on the grounds that: the territory was "unallocated," belonging to no state, it acquired control over the territory as the chance of defensive war, it had long historical ties to and claims upon the territory. Since international law is not independent of international politics in the manner that domestic law is at least supposed to be independent of domestic politics, one can question whether Isra ... view full comment
If Israel were to incorporate the territories and grant the inhabitants full political rights, something it could do without a "peace treaty" as by definition there would be no one left with whom to negotiate that treaty, it would have a colorable claim of right under customary international law on the grounds that: the territory was "unallocated," belonging to no state, it acquired control over the territory as the chance of defensive war, it had long historical ties to and claims upon the territory. Since international law is not independent of international politics in the manner that domestic law is at least supposed to be independent of domestic politics, one can question whether Israel's claims would be recognized and it would therefore achieve internationally recognized borders in this way. But a good international lawyer could at least make the claim with a straight face. (Of course, this would also run afoul of Resolution 242, but we can pretend for the sake of argument that this does not exist or is of no force.)
What is no longer arguable under international law is that a state may have a minority population to which it does not accord equal political rights, such as those rights may be in any particular state. This is the crime against humanity that is called apartheid. The term is not well-defined, but one can be pretty sure that this state of affairs would fall within the definition. Hence, unless it were willing to take the risks entailed in being branded by the world as an apartheid state, it cannot incorporate the territories without according the inhabitants political rights. As a practical matter, it cannot incorporate the territories and accord the inhabitants political rights because it would be overwhelmed demographically.
It is for these very reasons, including Resolution 242, that Israel itself maintains the status of most of the territory seized in 1967 as occupied. It acknowledges this as the reality by government the territories with a military occupation government. Since Israel itself acknowledges the territories as occupied and does not claim them as compensation or on any other basis to be integral territory of Israel, international law is also quite clear that it may not transfer its own population to the territories, as it has plainly done with its settlement policy.
Now, a naïve or ignorant person might say, So what? International law is not like domestic law. There are no courts or police to enforce it (leaving aside that Israel is actually a state-party to some of the relevant treaties). This view fails to comprehend that international law is primarily customary law amongst nations, only reduced to positive law with some nascent legal apparatus, in relatively recent times. Even without a legal apparatus, the custom of nations affects how nations do in fact behave, what they take as a reason for war for example, for boycott, for the basis of trade.
To pretend that international law is of no force because there are no international police (in fact there are in some circumstances under the UN Charter) makes as much sense as insisting that social custom does not exist unless it is cast into positive law. If, however, one resolutely refuses to ignore social custom, one can quickly find oneself without friends and perhaps without a livelihood. There are some wealthy and powerful individuals who can afford this. Most people cannot. Thus, whatever their views of social custom, they ignore it at their peril.
So it is with international law. It may be safely ignored up to the point when other nations, or enough of them, conclude that a country is an outlaw and decide to take action. Of course, nations being large things, movement in international affairs is much slower than change in the relations amongst people. It wouldn't take very long for someone who ignored social convention to be ostracized. The fact that it takes longer in international affairs does not mean it cannot or will not happen. We have South Africa and North Korea as examples (and North Korea only endures its isolation because China continues to assist it in a variety of ways -- keeping it on the edge of starvation but preventing it from imploding).
Given the rulings of international judicial bodies against Israel, it is quite unlikely that the world would ever accept the view of international law propounded above. And that is what ultimately matters in international law, the consensus. Because international law is custom that organizes the actions of nations. One can be of the view that Israel can become an outlaw, become increasingly isolated, be ostracized by the world, and still survive. That would not be a very good bet.
On a related thread, TNR.reader declares that Israel has done very nicely for 60 years, including the period when it was not supplied by arms by the US. Of course, during that period, it was supplied with arms by the French. It seems not to have crossed TNR.reader's mind that it may have been perfectly congenial to the United States to have Israel supplied with arms without itself being the prime supplier (although F-4 Phantoms were an important part of Israel's arsenal prior to the Six-Day War). Do we have evidence of this? We do. When France was no longer willing to supply Israel, the US immediately stepped into the breach, strongly suggesting that it was always US policy that Israel have sufficient arms to defend itself.
Israel is not a large nation endowed with great mineral wealth and other natural resources. You cannot build jet fighters out of potash. The notion that Israel could very long endure international sanctions if they ever came is absurd. If sanctions come, they will come over the issue of settlements or, well before that, international bodies will start to move in such a way that Israel is forced to yield.
The bet of the idiotic right-wing of Israel is that Israel can persuade the Palestinians to legitimize a lot of the settlements as part of a peace treaty. That's not particularly likely. However, if one wants to pursue that strategy rather than just run out the clock on the world's collective patience, a person who was not an idiot or a messianic nut, would realize that drawing the Palestinians into negotiations was a necessary condition for having an outcome that legitimizes settlements. Invited by the US to make gestures in that direction, a person who was not an idiot or a messianic nut would take the exit ramp offered and noisily trumpet its willingness to make every effort toward the success of peace negotiations, advancing thereby its own interest and securing a measure of good will for the patron, the US, that is pretty much the only thing standing between it and international sanctions today.
But Israel is governed by fools and messianic nuts, egged on by people like TNR.reader, who, whether or not he is Israeli, plainly wishes upon Israel noble martyrdom rather than long and prosperous life. Does that make him an anti-Semite or a Nazi? I would not venture to say.
In case it was too much of an intellectual leap, let me make explicit that what renders the settlements indubitably a "colonial enterprise" is that Israel itself declines to incorporate the territory. Its settlements, rather than being settlements of territory it claims as its own, are settlements on territory it does not claim and are in derogation of the interests of the existing population. They also require extra-territoriality of law in which Israeli settlers are governed by different law than Palestinian Arabs within the same political region, the Occupied Territory. That renders the settlements as colonies, under whatever basis they may be claimed.
In case it was too much of an intellectual leap, let me make explicit that what renders the settlements indubitably a "colonial enterprise" is that Israel itself declines to incorporate the territory. Its settlements, rather than being settlements of territory it claims as its own, are settlements on territory it does not claim and are in derogation of the interests of the existing population. They also require extra-territoriality of law in which Israeli settlers are governed by different law than Palestinian Arabs within the same political region, the Occupied Territory. That renders the settlements as colonies, under whatever basis they may be claimed.
"...let me make explicit that what renders the settlements indubitably a "colonial enterprise" is that Israel itself declines to incorporate the territory. Its settlements, rather than being settlements of territory it claims as its own, are settlements on territory it does not claim and are in derogation of the interests of the existing population. They also require extra-territoriality of law in which Israeli settlers are governed by different law than Palestinian Arabs within the same political region, the Occupied Territory. That renders the settlements as colonies, under whatever basis they may be claimed."
This is a plausible way of describing the status of the settlements today, no mat ... view full comment
"...let me make explicit that what renders the settlements indubitably a "colonial enterprise" is that Israel itself declines to incorporate the territory. Its settlements, rather than being settlements of territory it claims as its own, are settlements on territory it does not claim and are in derogation of the interests of the existing population. They also require extra-territoriality of law in which Israeli settlers are governed by different law than Palestinian Arabs within the same political region, the Occupied Territory. That renders the settlements as colonies, under whatever basis they may be claimed."
This is a plausible way of describing the status of the settlements today, no matter what the intentions, when they were established, were back in the mid 70's.
Roi no need to be snooty in your response to TNR.Reader. I disagree with him on some issues but that doesn't make him a "drooling idiot."
Roi no need to be snooty in your response to TNR.Reader. I disagree with him on some issues but that doesn't make him a "drooling idiot."
RoisDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne:
We see that RoisDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. His logorrhoea indicates solely a profound ignorance both of Israel and of logic.
Two examples of Roi's nonsense should suffice:
1. His argument reduces to:
No western nation would ever take major arms against Israel, and any attempt at economic sanctions would be just as ineffective as those agains ... view full comment
RoisDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne:
We see that RoisDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. His logorrhoea indicates solely a profound ignorance both of Israel and of logic.
Two examples of Roi's nonsense should suffice:
1. His argument reduces to:
No western nation would ever take major arms against Israel, and any attempt at economic sanctions would be just as ineffective as those against Iran. Nor would that necessarily be possible, since Israel could easily survive until the regime in Washington rotates and breaks any sanctions.
2.
Thus, in such a gross generalisation, we see exposed the core of Roi's soul: A deep contempt for Israeli democracy and for the Israeli public which twice put Netanyahu in office.
As for Bibi himself, he holds two MIT degrees and could easily make short work of Roi in any intellectual or political forum.
Descent into vituperation confirms Roi knows he has lost the argument.
Of even greater importance is his re-creation on the pages of TNR of the very hate-filled atmosphere which gave rise to Yigal Amir. It does TNR, the Jewish community, and Israel significant harm.
Well, jackson, if you were reading the thread "It's Time for Israel to Talk to Hamas," you would understand why. Flame wars happen. They are a part of cyber-life. Then they go away.
Well, jackson, if you were reading the thread "It's Time for Israel to Talk to Hamas," you would understand why. Flame wars happen. They are a part of cyber-life. Then they go away.
On the contrary, Roi; you have exposed your character for the entire world to see.
On the contrary, Roi; you have exposed your character for the entire world to see.
Lost an argument? With you tnr-reader? Don't be absurd. It's just that when one is in a flame-war, it is necessary to choose the right weapon. Some people are clever. With them, one needs wit. Some are really nuts. With them, a little teasing is usually what works best. I judge you to be in the class of those who are both pretty dim and who think they are much, much smarter than they are. Wit would be lost on you. Crude epithets are your speed. Anything more would be a waste of effort.
The evidence for my low opinion of you is that you said something very stupid, and when I ridiculed what you had said -- without however resorting to name-calling or epithets -- the only thing you co ... view full comment
Lost an argument? With you tnr-reader? Don't be absurd. It's just that when one is in a flame-war, it is necessary to choose the right weapon. Some people are clever. With them, one needs wit. Some are really nuts. With them, a little teasing is usually what works best. I judge you to be in the class of those who are both pretty dim and who think they are much, much smarter than they are. Wit would be lost on you. Crude epithets are your speed. Anything more would be a waste of effort.
The evidence for my low opinion of you is that you said something very stupid, and when I ridiculed what you had said -- without however resorting to name-calling or epithets -- the only thing you could think of in response was to call me an anti-Semite. (There isn't much here that provokes me to laugh out loud, but that did.) Your inability to muster any more artful response immediately labeled you as a dummy. Sorry. It must be a difficult way to get through life, constantly confronted by people smarter than you saying things you don't really understand. Frustrating for you, I am sure.
If thinking that such as Netanyahu are stupid and dangerous in their stupidity represents deep contempt for Israel and Isreali society, then I must also have deep contempt for Americans and the American society that twice elected George W. Bush who was even stupider and more dangerous than Netanyahu. And Bush went to both Yale and Harvard! Big deal. Anyone who has ever attended such an institution, as I have, knows that there are stupid people there too.
No, what I have is a deep, profound, and enduring contempt for the ideological right-wing, a group so benighted that they have no means of interpreting any disagreement with their ideological fantasies other than as hatred. That societies ... view full comment
If thinking that such as Netanyahu are stupid and dangerous in their stupidity represents deep contempt for Israel and Isreali society, then I must also have deep contempt for Americans and the American society that twice elected George W. Bush who was even stupider and more dangerous than Netanyahu. And Bush went to both Yale and Harvard! Big deal. Anyone who has ever attended such an institution, as I have, knows that there are stupid people there too.
No, what I have is a deep, profound, and enduring contempt for the ideological right-wing, a group so benighted that they have no means of interpreting any disagreement with their ideological fantasies other than as hatred. That societies are periodically drawn to right-wing leadership when the historical record is so overwhelming that nothing good follows is a paradox of human nature. But, at regular intervals societies have to re-learn the lesson that the hubristic right produces only failure. Israel will spit Netanyahu out again. Then he will have been elected twice and unelected twice. I prefer the aspect of Israeli society that unelects him. That's the decent and thoughtful side. (It's not as if the Likud actually won a majority in the Knesset; it didn't even win the most seats. If it had, then I would really be worried about the future of Israel.) And if pressure from the United States and Netanyahu's incapacity to deal with that hastens the day of his second departure, so much the better.
tnr.reader says:
"Descent into vituperation confirms Roi knows he has lost the argument.
Of even greater importance is his re-creation on the pages of TNR of the very hate-filled atmosphere which gave rise to Yigal Amir. It does TNR, the Jewish community, and Israel significant harm."
With more justification, tnr.reader, one could say that your immediate resort to crude epithets -- and indeed you were the first to do so although you would now like to pretend otherwise -- when confronted with an argument to which you were unable to respond intelligently is the sort of mentality that gave rise to Baruch Goldstein. That's you tnr.reader, a witless admirer of Baruch Goldstein.
tnr.reader says:
"Descent into vituperation confirms Roi knows he has lost the argument.
Of even greater importance is his re-creation on the pages of TNR of the very hate-filled atmosphere which gave rise to Yigal Amir. It does TNR, the Jewish community, and Israel significant harm."
With more justification, tnr.reader, one could say that your immediate resort to crude epithets -- and indeed you were the first to do so although you would now like to pretend otherwise -- when confronted with an argument to which you were unable to respond intelligently is the sort of mentality that gave rise to Baruch Goldstein. That's you tnr.reader, a witless admirer of Baruch Goldstein.
There is an old saying that sticks and stone will break my bones but names will do no harm.
Unsuprisingly, TNR.Reader, jdyer and noga dislike the word Zio-Nazi since it accurately describes their morally-depraved worldview. I have nothing but contempt for those who attack the word Zio-Nazi even as they support the aims of the most pervasive and pernicious form of neo-Nazism in the Western World - the Zio-Nazism of the so-called settlers.
The word Zio-Nazi accurately describes those who support the decades-long Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people which has brutally killed thousands of Palestinians and immiserated an entire people. Furthermore, in using the history of the Jewish ... view full comment
There is an old saying that sticks and stone will break my bones but names will do no harm.
Unsuprisingly, TNR.Reader, jdyer and noga dislike the word Zio-Nazi since it accurately describes their morally-depraved worldview. I have nothing but contempt for those who attack the word Zio-Nazi even as they support the aims of the most pervasive and pernicious form of neo-Nazism in the Western World - the Zio-Nazism of the so-called settlers.
The word Zio-Nazi accurately describes those who support the decades-long Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people which has brutally killed thousands of Palestinians and immiserated an entire people. Furthermore, in using the history of the Jewish people to justify this oppression by the State of Israel they seek to share the blame for Israeli war crimes among all Jews they show themselves to be Zionist Anti-Semites - the most widespread form of anti-Semitism among the modern Western elite.
Unsuprisingly, TNR.Reader, jdyer and noga have found a gathering spot on The Spine the house blog of American Zio-Nazism. And however much Jonathan Chait may pretend it is not so The New Republic and Commentary form the intellectual heartland of this vile ideology. Well done, Frank Foer.
We now see Roi not only offering excuses for his vituperation, but extending it. He cannot stand difference of opinion, or hates most of the Israeli electorate, or both.
In either case, the vituperation is inexcusable.
Further, if he is in fact Jewish, then that level of hatred of the Israeli electrate, combined with his above suggestion that AIPAC represents Israeli control of the USA (a commonplace theme of anti-Semitic sites), suggests an inner sickness of some sort.
This is confirmed by the tendency to simply make up facts. For example:
We now see Roi not only offering excuses for his vituperation, but extending it. He cannot stand difference of opinion, or hates most of the Israeli electorate, or both.
In either case, the vituperation is inexcusable.
Further, if he is in fact Jewish, then that level of hatred of the Israeli electrate, combined with his above suggestion that AIPAC represents Israeli control of the USA (a commonplace theme of anti-Semitic sites), suggests an inner sickness of some sort.
This is confirmed by the tendency to simply make up facts. For example:
The USA made no major arms supply to Israel until 1968, its first large arms sale of Phantoms to the Jewish state.
Roi:
No, Roi, it wasn't the only thing I could think of, but unlike your august self, I know how to hold my tongue.
Moreover, it was accurate; AIPAC is American, not Israeli, and does not control the US government. You emulated quite well one of the most common of anti-Semitic themes. We see your anti-Semitism confirmed in your treatment of Israel's democratically-chosen government as "fools and messianic nuts."
If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck ... it' a duck.
Roi:
No, Roi, it wasn't the only thing I could think of, but unlike your august self, I know how to hold my tongue.
Moreover, it was accurate; AIPAC is American, not Israeli, and does not control the US government. You emulated quite well one of the most common of anti-Semitic themes. We see your anti-Semitism confirmed in your treatment of Israel's democratically-chosen government as "fools and messianic nuts."
If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck ... it' a duck.
Roi:
No, what you have is a contempt for Israeli democracy and a mountain-sized chip on your shoulder.
And apparently little contact with those Israelis - from Mizrahim to Ashkenazi haredim to secular Russians - who have put Likud in office over and over.
Roi:
No, what you have is a contempt for Israeli democracy and a mountain-sized chip on your shoulder.
And apparently little contact with those Israelis - from Mizrahim to Ashkenazi haredim to secular Russians - who have put Likud in office over and over.
ndmackenzie, who actually advocates political violence by Arabs in the absence of any threat of violence against them, is not to be taken seriously. His love of bloodshed has long been apparent, and he uses the term Zio-Nazi only in the hope that it will be provocative. Coming from him, nothing is provocative, because it is all drenched with his love of death. It is only sick.
B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, recites that the civil strife between Israel and the Palestinians, meaning not including the wars of regular forces, have cause 3,650 Palestinian deaths and 1,142 Israeli deaths. This does not include an estimated 1,000 deaths of ... view full comment
ndmackenzie, who actually advocates political violence by Arabs in the absence of any threat of violence against them, is not to be taken seriously. His love of bloodshed has long been apparent, and he uses the term Zio-Nazi only in the hope that it will be provocative. Coming from him, nothing is provocative, because it is all drenched with his love of death. It is only sick.
B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, recites that the civil strife between Israel and the Palestinians, meaning not including the wars of regular forces, have cause 3,650 Palestinian deaths and 1,142 Israeli deaths. This does not include an estimated 1,000 deaths of Arabs at the hands of other Arabs. Not exactly the Holocaust. To convey a sense of scale, 2,973 Americans died in the September 11 attacks.
Oddly enough, tnr.reader makes exactly the same argument that Hamas makes: That whatever government is elected by Democratic means, its acts deserve respect. No, that a government is democratically elected means only that the people who elected them can be held responsible for the acts of their government. There is nothing that says that discreditable acts by an elected government deserve anything other than condemnation.
By this perverse logic, Israelis have no complaint about any policy adopted by the Obama administration. He, after all, was elected by tens of millions of Americans whereas Netanyahu's party does not even enjoy a plurality in the Knesset. By disagreeing with Obama and c ... view full comment
Oddly enough, tnr.reader makes exactly the same argument that Hamas makes: That whatever government is elected by Democratic means, its acts deserve respect. No, that a government is democratically elected means only that the people who elected them can be held responsible for the acts of their government. There is nothing that says that discreditable acts by an elected government deserve anything other than condemnation.
By this perverse logic, Israelis have no complaint about any policy adopted by the Obama administration. He, after all, was elected by tens of millions of Americans whereas Netanyahu's party does not even enjoy a plurality in the Knesset. By disagreeing with Obama and casting aspersions on his policies, and with their interference in American domestic affairs by lobbying, through AIPAC, the American legislature (is there any counterpart of this in Israel? no) should we conclude that Israel has only contempt for Americans and American society. I suppose that, in the case of tnr.reader, this is exactly what we should conclude, as (s)he tells us in no uncertain terms that criticism, even contempt, for the leader of another nation expresses contempt for its people. It is not difficult to find Israelis volubly expressing contempt for President Obama.
Hitler was elected too. We criticize leaders, and rightly so, for their bad bad behavior, bad policies, and ineptitude. Only in totalitarian societies is criticism of government regarded as betrayal. The right-wing, while always engaging in the most vicious, even vile criticism of left-wing government, constantly urges upon as that it is a threat to the state and society to criticize a right-wing government. This is right-wing propaganda trash that any thinking person ought to ignore.
Ah, so you are a liar too tnr.reader. Why am I not surprised. I never said nor even intimated that AIPAC controls the US government.
Israelis are lately complaining of American policy they don't like that this is interference in Israeli domestic affairs. This is objectively ridiculous, merely another propaganda ploy, made doubly so be the fact that AIPAC directly lobbies the American government and legislature on behalf of Israel. It was founded when the American Zionist Council was obliged to register as a foreign agent and it would take a wilful act of ignorance not to notice both that AIPAC represents the interests of Israel and that it is indistinguishable form the American Zionist ... view full comment
Ah, so you are a liar too tnr.reader. Why am I not surprised. I never said nor even intimated that AIPAC controls the US government.
Israelis are lately complaining of American policy they don't like that this is interference in Israeli domestic affairs. This is objectively ridiculous, merely another propaganda ploy, made doubly so be the fact that AIPAC directly lobbies the American government and legislature on behalf of Israel. It was founded when the American Zionist Council was obliged to register as a foreign agent and it would take a wilful act of ignorance not to notice both that AIPAC represents the interests of Israel and that it is indistinguishable form the American Zionist Council that it replaced.
There is no counterpart in Israel of anyone lobbying elements of the Israeli government on behalf of the United States, and it is certainly not the case that the United States pressuring Israel to do what is in the interest of the United States is inappropriate interference in Israel's affairs. States pressure other states, particularly their client states, to act in ways that benefit them. Israel directly, and through the media, exerts pressure on the United States in its own interests. It also has a lobby here.
By your twisted lights, taking notice of objective reality or criticizing Israeli leadership expresses contempt for Israeli society. The right-wing, both in the United States and Israel, has much nastier things to say about left-wing government that it disagrees with than anything I can conjure up about the right. And given your propensity for epithets, it is highly likely that you are an eager participant.
tnr.reader is correct that the US did not sell Phantoms to Israel until 1968, as the result of direct pressure on Congress on behalf of Israel. It is my mis-recollection that they were employed during the Six Day War itself. The US sold Israel Hawk missiles in 1962 and 210 Patton tanks in 1965. It explicitly stepped in as Israel's arms supplier to replace the French after the Six Day War. It considered Israel adequately armed to that point, as apparently it was.
The main point that tnr.reader was attempting to make -- that the Israeli military capability does not require US support -- is objectively absurd. Israel has been the single largest recipient of direct US economic and military ... view full comment
tnr.reader is correct that the US did not sell Phantoms to Israel until 1968, as the result of direct pressure on Congress on behalf of Israel. It is my mis-recollection that they were employed during the Six Day War itself. The US sold Israel Hawk missiles in 1962 and 210 Patton tanks in 1965. It explicitly stepped in as Israel's arms supplier to replace the French after the Six Day War. It considered Israel adequately armed to that point, as apparently it was.
The main point that tnr.reader was attempting to make -- that the Israeli military capability does not require US support -- is objectively absurd. Israel has been the single largest recipient of direct US economic and military aid since WWII.
"tnr.reader is correct that the US did not sell Phantoms to Israel until 1968, as the result of direct pressure on Congress on behalf of Israel. It is my mis-recollection that they were employed during the Six Day War itself. "
This is not so easily dismissable an error, for someone such as you, who try to pass yourself as some sort of an expert authority on Israel's history. One may well wonder, under what other mis-recollections you work when you pronounce opinions and positions about Israel? What other errors are embedded in that memory of yours? How much can the reader actually trust you when you dispense your political wisdom about Israel's history and politics?
"tnr.reader is correct that the US did not sell Phantoms to Israel until 1968, as the result of direct pressure on Congress on behalf of Israel. It is my mis-recollection that they were employed during the Six Day War itself. "
This is not so easily dismissable an error, for someone such as you, who try to pass yourself as some sort of an expert authority on Israel's history. One may well wonder, under what other mis-recollections you work when you pronounce opinions and positions about Israel? What other errors are embedded in that memory of yours? How much can the reader actually trust you when you dispense your political wisdom about Israel's history and politics?
Don't be silly, noga. I have never suggested that I am an "expert authority on Israel's history," an authority on Israel's history, an expert on Israel's history, or even that I am exceptionally knowledgeable about Israel's history. Usually I have to go check any factual assertion I make, even those I think I recall, because I can and do recall things incorrectly. In this particular case, I didn't check my memory of Phantoms being used to good effect in that era. Apparently, I was conflating my memories of 1967 and 1973. I am happy to admit a mistake when I have made one.
The basic point that I was making in this case, that the US was content, as a matter of policy, to have France as Isr ... view full comment
Don't be silly, noga. I have never suggested that I am an "expert authority on Israel's history," an authority on Israel's history, an expert on Israel's history, or even that I am exceptionally knowledgeable about Israel's history. Usually I have to go check any factual assertion I make, even those I think I recall, because I can and do recall things incorrectly. In this particular case, I didn't check my memory of Phantoms being used to good effect in that era. Apparently, I was conflating my memories of 1967 and 1973. I am happy to admit a mistake when I have made one.
The basic point that I was making in this case, that the US was content, as a matter of policy, to have France as Israel's major arms supplier, is borne out by fact-checking. That was the policy prior to 1968. I am also correct that the US deliberately stepped in as Israel's major arms supplier once France refused to supply Israel any longer. This also bears out my contention that the US was never "boycotting" Israel as far as arms go as TNR.reader suggested.
Indeed, TNR.reader (does (s)he also purport to be an expert authority on Israel's history?) is incorrect in stating that the US was not also an important arms supplier to Israel prior to 1968. It supplied both Hawk missiles and a large number of Patton tanks in 1962 and 1965, respectively.
I don't in fact have much of anything to say either about Israel's history or its politics. I find its politics boring. Most of the relevant history is fairly well-known and there is no need to discuss it except to correct errors of fact made by the tendentious. I make some mistakes too, although, as here, usually not very big ones. What I have to say is not about the facts but largely about the nature of Israel's strategic position, including its military, diplomatic, propaganda, and international legal posture, less about its economics as that isn't typically the source of contention, except when we read that Israel would easily endure an international boycott if one came. That is just silly.
Most of the opinions I express can stand on their own without need of historical exegesis, and I take pains to articulate not only my conclusions but my reasoning, often to complaints that I am too long-winded. That should enable you or anyone else to make a substantive argument in disagreement. I am happy to engage a substantive argument on the merits, and do when one is offered, rather than by resort to epithets and the like which is usually the best that those on the right are able to muster.
When that occurs, I respond in kind as I don't think the noisiest and most obnoxious deserve to win the argument. My political tutors have taught me and I accpet that when you encounter that kind of crap, you meet it with an equal or greater amount of the same crap because thoughtful arguments will not work under those circumstances. Once the crap has been fought to a draw, which is usually the best that can be hoped for, it is then possible to return to more substantive discussion with those who have an interest in substantive discussion.
Jackson,
Don't know what you are busy reading these days, but I penned a response to your question over on Peretz's Gaza Jihad post.
Jackson,
Don't know what you are busy reading these days, but I penned a response to your question over on Peretz's Gaza Jihad post.
JDyer, many thanks for your attempt to teach the classless Roi some menschlichkeit - but one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
You should realise the problem extends well beyond Roi's malignant ego to a core of racism.
In Israel, the bulwark of Likud support arises from Mizrahim, haredim, and Russians. To Roi, all three of these groups are inferior: To people like Roi, the haredim are religious nutters; the Mizrahim are an inferior race; and the Russians are despicable. Only secular Ashkenazim have rights; the rest - Mizrahi, haredi, and Russian Jews - are "stupid," inferior gnats to be squashed.
Unfortunately for Roi, the haredim, Mizrahim, and Russians constitute the majority of Isra ... view full comment
JDyer, many thanks for your attempt to teach the classless Roi some menschlichkeit - but one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
You should realise the problem extends well beyond Roi's malignant ego to a core of racism.
In Israel, the bulwark of Likud support arises from Mizrahim, haredim, and Russians. To Roi, all three of these groups are inferior: To people like Roi, the haredim are religious nutters; the Mizrahim are an inferior race; and the Russians are despicable. Only secular Ashkenazim have rights; the rest - Mizrahi, haredi, and Russian Jews - are "stupid," inferior gnats to be squashed.
Unfortunately for Roi, the haredim, Mizrahim, and Russians constitute the majority of Israel's Jews and will decide her fate, no matter how much Roi may hate them. Poor fellow - they not only don't even know he exists, but wouldn't listen to him in any case.
Moreover, his dozen posts in under a day indicate a worrisome level of obsession and instablility. All in all, a dangerous fellow.
JDyer:
Actually, there are at least three or four other models whose fact-pattern matches the situation far more closely than the colonial model:
Models
1. colonial
2. civil war
3. population exchange
4. dhimmified minority/compensatory damages
5. dhimmified minority/positive discrimination
I'll be glad to add specifics when I've a moment.
JDyer:
Actually, there are at least three or four other models whose fact-pattern matches the situation far more closely than the colonial model:
Models
1. colonial
2. civil war
3. population exchange
4. dhimmified minority/compensatory damages
5. dhimmified minority/positive discrimination
I'll be glad to add specifics when I've a moment.
"Unfortunately, for Roi, the haredim, Mizrahim and Russians constitute the majority of Israel's Jews and will decide her fate . . ."
If that is the case, the misfortune is all yours. I don't live in Israel, and all the members of my family who do carry American passports. And Americans, not Israelis, will decide what is in the interest of the United States. That may be your misfortune too if Israel cannot align its interests with those of the US as the notion that the US is going to align its interest with those of Israel is narishkeit.
The haredim ARE religious nutters. That pretty much defines haredim. It is indeed a misfortune that the world in which we live operates on rather diffe ... view full comment
"Unfortunately, for Roi, the haredim, Mizrahim and Russians constitute the majority of Israel's Jews and will decide her fate . . ."
If that is the case, the misfortune is all yours. I don't live in Israel, and all the members of my family who do carry American passports. And Americans, not Israelis, will decide what is in the interest of the United States. That may be your misfortune too if Israel cannot align its interests with those of the US as the notion that the US is going to align its interest with those of Israel is narishkeit.
The haredim ARE religious nutters. That pretty much defines haredim. It is indeed a misfortune that the world in which we live operates on rather different principles than those that the religious nuts adhere too. There is no such thing as "faith-based reality" much as they wish there were. If they would stay in their self-imposed ghettoes, talk to god, and stay out of pubic affairs, the world would be a better and much safer place. Alas, it is the price of democracy that they don't.
As to Mizrahim, and Russian Jews, I have no opinion whatsoever in relation to their place of origin or the culture they come from. I don't even think about it let alone regard them as either superior or inferior. If they are rightists, then they too are a threat to the peace and security of the world and to the secure future of Israel. Democracy requires that they have their say too. But sensible people will deplore what they have to say.
The racism and the fantasies of racism are all yours TNR.reader. You are so empty of a mature thought that the only thing you can do is reduce everything to questions of race, ethnicity, etc. The only one here to make an issue or even any reference to any of that is you. It is your obsession, not mine.
If I can be a danger to the opinions of such as you, TNR.reader, I consider it a public service. I certainly hope so. You, on the other hand, are not a danger to anyone other than yourself. You are too inept and self-absorbed to have a chance of moving anyone's opinion in any direction. You masturbate here. That is all.
I think you are pretty stupid, TNR.reader. Rather obviously so. But I certainly don't think your stupidity has any implications about anyone else's intellect, be they haredi, Mizrahi, Russian or anything else. The prize is all yours.
It also occurs to me reading your latest effluent that you define your politics and those of Likud in opposition to the Ashkenazim. Not surprising. Those who are profligate with charges of racism are most typically racists. I don't define my political or policy views in relation to the identity of those I disagree with. I disagree with their opinions. If the haredim, Mizrahim, and Russians are like you, then woe unto Israel indeed. It's fate will be deci ... view full comment
I think you are pretty stupid, TNR.reader. Rather obviously so. But I certainly don't think your stupidity has any implications about anyone else's intellect, be they haredi, Mizrahi, Russian or anything else. The prize is all yours.
It also occurs to me reading your latest effluent that you define your politics and those of Likud in opposition to the Ashkenazim. Not surprising. Those who are profligate with charges of racism are most typically racists. I don't define my political or policy views in relation to the identity of those I disagree with. I disagree with their opinions. If the haredim, Mizrahim, and Russians are like you, then woe unto Israel indeed. It's fate will be decided by race-obsession rather than by a sound understanding of the world.
"It is indeed a misfortune that the world in which we live operates on rather different principles than those that the religious nuts adhere too. "
"Religious nuts" are not much different from political nuts, that is, liberal nuts or conservative nuts. They all have this common: they have a theological perspective. If you disagree with their perspective, you are an idiot, fanatic and nutcase. They can be easily recognized from the way they manage to avoid new facts. When they are made aware of some factual error in their thinking, they right away swallow the fact while completely ignoring it or the harm it has caused to their general theories.
That type of political adherence is not disting ... view full comment
"It is indeed a misfortune that the world in which we live operates on rather different principles than those that the religious nuts adhere too. "
"Religious nuts" are not much different from political nuts, that is, liberal nuts or conservative nuts. They all have this common: they have a theological perspective. If you disagree with their perspective, you are an idiot, fanatic and nutcase. They can be easily recognized from the way they manage to avoid new facts. When they are made aware of some factual error in their thinking, they right away swallow the fact while completely ignoring it or the harm it has caused to their general theories.
That type of political adherence is not distinguishable in tone, effect or affect from Savonarolla's fire and brimstone.
Roid,
Nobody does it better than you. I have way too much going on in my life right now, but still check in because it is like watching Bjorn Borg play tennis. It literally makes me smile. You are a credit to those who share your sympathies.
Roid,
Nobody does it better than you. I have way too much going on in my life right now, but still check in because it is like watching Bjorn Borg play tennis. It literally makes me smile. You are a credit to those who share your sympathies.
"If you disagree with their perspective, you are an idiot, fanatic and nutcase."
Hmmm. These are exactly the terms applied by the resident extreme-leftist (Roid) to Shas and to myself.
Noga: "That type of political adherence is not distinguishable in tone, effect or affect from Savonarolla's fire and brimstone."
Ironic that it is now the left which has adopted Savonarola's tactics. What matters to the UC Irvine (Oren) or the U of Ottawa or CAIR or Roid is, like Savonarola, dominating and silencing opposition by any means necessary. In Roid's case, if sheer volume (dozens of posts in two days) doesn't work, then vituperation will do. He has managed to turn the TNR blog into the roidubouloi blog.
"If you disagree with their perspective, you are an idiot, fanatic and nutcase."
Hmmm. These are exactly the terms applied by the resident extreme-leftist (Roid) to Shas and to myself.
Noga: "That type of political adherence is not distinguishable in tone, effect or affect from Savonarolla's fire and brimstone."
Ironic that it is now the left which has adopted Savonarola's tactics. What matters to the UC Irvine (Oren) or the U of Ottawa or CAIR or Roid is, like Savonarola, dominating and silencing opposition by any means necessary. In Roid's case, if sheer volume (dozens of posts in two days) doesn't work, then vituperation will do. He has managed to turn the TNR blog into the roidubouloi blog.
Noga is correct, there is not much difference between theological nuts and ideological nuts, although I would say there is a slightly greater possibility of changing the views of ideological nuts and they are typically more cunning than the theological in the way in which they deal with the world. The theological nuts are particularly dangerous both because they are immovable -- they talk to god -- and because the don't feel the need to understand the real world. God and prayer and righteousness according to the arcana of their religious beliefs will provide, or not. They are both unworldly and fatalistic, an especially lethal cocktail. It is what leads people to strap on suicide belts.
... view full comment
Noga is correct, there is not much difference between theological nuts and ideological nuts, although I would say there is a slightly greater possibility of changing the views of ideological nuts and they are typically more cunning than the theological in the way in which they deal with the world. The theological nuts are particularly dangerous both because they are immovable -- they talk to god -- and because the don't feel the need to understand the real world. God and prayer and righteousness according to the arcana of their religious beliefs will provide, or not. They are both unworldly and fatalistic, an especially lethal cocktail. It is what leads people to strap on suicide belts.
So, tell us, noga, what new facts have you managed not to avoid lately? Just so we know that you are neither a theological nut nor an ideological nut.
* * *
You, TNR,reader, are not an idiot, fanatic, and nutcase because I disagree with your politics. You are an idiot, fanatic, and nutcase because you are an idiot, fanatic, and nutcase. You demonstrate this with your complete inability to advance any point of view or argument other than the slinging of epithets, such as anti-Semite. The moment you manage to make an actual argument or advance a position that is grounded in reason of any kind, however tenuous -- rather than merely reciting the litany of haredi, Mizrahi, and Russian resentments to which you constantly resort, as if mere resentment constitutes truth -- someone will surely take it up. As long as you can do no better than sling epithets and insults and recite your resentments, you are merely a nuisance to be treated with disdain.
Hi Molly,
I hope that whatever is keeping you busy consists only of good things.
Chag sameach.
Hi Molly,
I hope that whatever is keeping you busy consists only of good things.
Chag sameach.