The point is made in a piece by John Bolton in this morning's Wall Street Journal. No, not the point about fobbing it off on Susan Rice. But the point about how the U.S. joining up with the U.N. Human Rights Council opened us up to diplomatic defeat after diplomatic defeat.
There were two disasters in and around the Goldstone Report.
The first was the irretrievable conclusion of the Report that countries and their proper armies (that is, armies according to the Geneva Convention) are actually and factually prohibited from fighting terror groups that meld into the civilian population. Which is what all of them do. In only one dimension does the commission look at both Israel and Hamas equally, and this is to conclude that both are capable of doing their own respectful and honest investigations into the conclusions reached by Goldstone and company. But, alas, this is a joke: imagine Hamas examining itself. It is, however, even more basic than that. One of Judge Goldstone's colleagues on the commission--that is, a jurist of the commission--had already declared Israel guilty before any of its proceedings had even begun. And the highly principled Mr. Goldstone, whom I actually met on a long-ago trip to South Africa, said not one word to her or about her.
America's new membership on the Human Rights Council has had no results in the fairness of the process. Did anyone imagine it would? Well, I suppose the president did. And Susan Rice said she did. Look back to my post on Ms. Rice's delusions.
The second disaster is the uncontestable demonstration of how empty and vapid is America's influence on the Human Rights Council itself. The president and his U.N. emissary had rebuked their predecessors--George Bush and John Bolton--for leaving the U.N. to its own devices. The new administration would fix that. Just wait and see.
Well, we waited and saw. I don't know to what extent the U.S. delegation worked the aisles of the HRC on behalf of justice. And, by the way, justice had only limited dimensions even in the abstract: it would have guaranteed that the little fault the commission charged Hamas with would be contained in the political resolution of the Council itself. OK, that might have taken a bit of effort by the American delegation. But no such work...and certainly no such luck.
There are 47 members of the HRC. Twenty-five of them voted "aye," mostly from countries that routinely make war on their own people and the Russian Federation, China and Cuba, big surprise. Five European countries voted "nay." Eleven abstained, including Japan, South Korea and a few other European countries. Five didn't vote at all--among them Great Britain and France--saying that this was, in effect, a vote for Israel. Nonsense. It was, as Bolton wrote in the WSJ, "simultaneously inexplicable and gutless."
Mr. Obama has now met the new HRC, same as the old HRC, thus producing a "teachable moment," a phrase he often uses. Quasi-religious faith in 'engagement' and the U.N. has run into empirical reality. When the administration picks itself off the ground, it should become more cognizant of that organization's moral and political limitations.
Although it will be hard for Mr. Obama to swallow, the logical response to Friday's debacle is to withdraw and defund the HRC. Otherwise the Goldstone Report will merely be the beginning, next time with perhaps with Washington as its unmistakable target.
This will be the easiest of his mistakes to admit. After all, the United Nations is recognized by almost everyone as a comedy. OK, if you will, a tragicomedy.
COMMENTS (70)
I am actually a little surprised that China and Russia voted for it since they are normally sticklers for non-interference within countries. The Russians and Chinese supported the Serbian oppression of the Albanians on just that (supposed) rationale. I would have expected them to simply abstain from voting on this so as to avoid it being used against them viz a viz Chechnya and Tibet/Xinjiang.
As to withdrawing from the council, I am ambivalent. OTOH it is good for us to at least be there to tell these pissants to f off. OTOH, why risk legitimizing a club of goons. (yes, I know the same thing can be said of the UN but it is great for the economy of NYC, and hey, when there is much money to be ... view full comment
I am actually a little surprised that China and Russia voted for it since they are normally sticklers for non-interference within countries. The Russians and Chinese supported the Serbian oppression of the Albanians on just that (supposed) rationale. I would have expected them to simply abstain from voting on this so as to avoid it being used against them viz a viz Chechnya and Tibet/Xinjiang.
As to withdrawing from the council, I am ambivalent. OTOH it is good for us to at least be there to tell these pissants to f off. OTOH, why risk legitimizing a club of goons. (yes, I know the same thing can be said of the UN but it is great for the economy of NYC, and hey, when there is much money to be made overcharging diplomats, I am all for that)
If I were John Bolton I would tell President Obama and VP Biden:
'In my judgment, your judgment about how to deal with the emerging threats have not been particularly useful'
Bolton gets it.
The administration, not so much.
If I were John Bolton I would tell President Obama and VP Biden:
'In my judgment, your judgment about how to deal with the emerging threats have not been particularly useful'
Bolton gets it.
The administration, not so much.
"...But, alas, this is a joke: imagine Hamas examining itself. "
Yep, a terrorist group examining itself for...committing terrorism. You couldn't make this stuff up.
"...But, alas, this is a joke: imagine Hamas examining itself. "
Yep, a terrorist group examining itself for...committing terrorism. You couldn't make this stuff up.
blackton,
"I am actually a little surprised that China and Russia voted for it since they are normally sticklers for non-interference within countries..."
Could it be that they're assuming that the US will kill it at the Security Council, since after voting for it at the UNHRC they sure as hell won't be voting against it anywhere else.
blackton,
"I am actually a little surprised that China and Russia voted for it since they are normally sticklers for non-interference within countries..."
Could it be that they're assuming that the US will kill it at the Security Council, since after voting for it at the UNHRC they sure as hell won't be voting against it anywhere else.
Well, perhaps the reason the commission doesn't look at the Israel army and the rag tag Hamas "military" equally is because it is analogous to giving equal consideration to a soldier with a tank and a soldier with a peashooter.
Israel is the goliath that took advantage of this and sent their tanks against the peashooters and in the process killed hundreds and hundreds of "collaterals"---including hundreds of collateral children.
Again, in going after the monsters with the peashooters it became the monster with the tanks.
Now, can this actually be demonstrated to be true? No, of course not. It is an existential leap. But no more so than Marty's. The only difference is that Marty pretends his ... view full comment
Well, perhaps the reason the commission doesn't look at the Israel army and the rag tag Hamas "military" equally is because it is analogous to giving equal consideration to a soldier with a tank and a soldier with a peashooter.
Israel is the goliath that took advantage of this and sent their tanks against the peashooters and in the process killed hundreds and hundreds of "collaterals"---including hundreds of collateral children.
Again, in going after the monsters with the peashooters it became the monster with the tanks.
Now, can this actually be demonstrated to be true? No, of course not. It is an existential leap. But no more so than Marty's. The only difference is that Marty pretends his narrative above is not really a narrative at all. More like a mathematical computation in which his reaction to the Goldstone report is deemed the equivalent of an equation by Albert Einstein.
That's really what this all boils down to: Hundreds of children were slaughtered---how do we rationalize it?
And if you don't agree with Mr. Peretz about it you are [by definition?] delusional.
So, can the man behind the spine ever admit to and learn from this mistake?
Well, that's like asking God the same question.
george
"pissants" and "goons"
gw:
Another civilized reminder of how we are ever so much closer to God than they are.
Mr tough guy? Though I suspect he has never had to go much further than the sort of harrangues you run across quite frequently in places like this. Neither a tank nor a peashooter, eh? Instead the huffing and the puffing of yet another word warrior. You know, like John "Chickenhawk" Bolton.
Take that, United Nations!!!
george
"pissants" and "goons"
gw:
Another civilized reminder of how we are ever so much closer to God than they are.
Mr tough guy? Though I suspect he has never had to go much further than the sort of harrangues you run across quite frequently in places like this. Neither a tank nor a peashooter, eh? Instead the huffing and the puffing of yet another word warrior. You know, like John "Chickenhawk" Bolton.
Take that, United Nations!!!
george
The best way to deal with John Bolton's contribution to international affairs is to wait and see what he says, then do the opposite.
The best way to deal with John Bolton's contribution to international affairs is to wait and see what he says, then do the opposite.
ironyroad
"The best way to deal with John Bolton's contribution to international affairs is to wait and see what he says, then do the opposite."
This is too clever by half.
ironyroad
"The best way to deal with John Bolton's contribution to international affairs is to wait and see what he says, then do the opposite."
This is too clever by half.
Some background on John Bolton.
"Bolton was born in Baltimore, Maryland. The son of a fireman[11], he grew up in the working-class neighborhood of Yale Heights and won a scholarship to the McDonogh School in Owings Mills, Maryland, graduating in 1966."
He is too conservative on domestic issues for me, but to call him a "chicken hawk" as the miseducated George Walton did is pretty absurd. But then Walton is homo absurdus incarnate.
Some background on John Bolton.
"Bolton was born in Baltimore, Maryland. The son of a fireman[11], he grew up in the working-class neighborhood of Yale Heights and won a scholarship to the McDonogh School in Owings Mills, Maryland, graduating in 1966."
He is too conservative on domestic issues for me, but to call him a "chicken hawk" as the miseducated George Walton did is pretty absurd. But then Walton is homo absurdus incarnate.
The best thing about the Obama administration is that the words of John Bolton - or Charles Krauthammer or any of the other discredited neocons peretz has been referencing over the past few days - no longer have an audience. These guys screwed up our foreign policy. They are discredited. They had their chance and blew it. Their Turn at Bat was a freakin' disaster.
The best thing about the Obama administration is that the words of John Bolton - or Charles Krauthammer or any of the other discredited neocons peretz has been referencing over the past few days - no longer have an audience. These guys screwed up our foreign policy. They are discredited. They had their chance and blew it. Their Turn at Bat was a freakin' disaster.
Ken I think we have touched on Krauthammer somewhere else recently.
Ken I think we have touched on Krauthammer somewhere else recently.
itz,
yep, but if you scroll down two or three spine nuggets, you will see The Kraut referenced again.
It seem to me that to have a post with a title addressing if one learns from one's mistakes, and then, have that very same article about John Bolton, one of the biggest mistakes in a mistake saturated Bush Administration, is pretty confused and says a lot about the author's own capacity to learn from his [numerous] mistakes.
itz,
yep, but if you scroll down two or three spine nuggets, you will see The Kraut referenced again.
It seem to me that to have a post with a title addressing if one learns from one's mistakes, and then, have that very same article about John Bolton, one of the biggest mistakes in a mistake saturated Bush Administration, is pretty confused and says a lot about the author's own capacity to learn from his [numerous] mistakes.
I wonder if this observation is not also rooted in a mistaken premise:
"But the point about how the U.S. joining up with the U.N. Human Rights Council opened us up to after diplomatic defeat. "
Is this a " diplomatic defeat" for Obama? Isn't this resolution, with US hovering uncertainly and ineffectually in the background as a bona fide member very much in line with Obama's deliberately limp vagueness about his real attitude towards Israel?
I don't think Peretz has yet realized that he and Obama are simply not on the same page as far as Israel's safety and legitimacy are concerned.
I saw Rahm Emanuel yesterday in some news and I was struck by how lame and lacklustre he seems. None of his usua ... view full comment
I wonder if this observation is not also rooted in a mistaken premise:
"But the point about how the U.S. joining up with the U.N. Human Rights Council opened us up to after diplomatic defeat. "
Is this a " diplomatic defeat" for Obama? Isn't this resolution, with US hovering uncertainly and ineffectually in the background as a bona fide member very much in line with Obama's deliberately limp vagueness about his real attitude towards Israel?
I don't think Peretz has yet realized that he and Obama are simply not on the same page as far as Israel's safety and legitimacy are concerned.
I saw Rahm Emanuel yesterday in some news and I was struck by how lame and lacklustre he seems. None of his usual assertiveness and confidence. I was wondering whether he is thinking that he may have gambled away a very promising career when he agreed to serve in Obama's administration. Obama's fatal flaw, indecisiveness and need to be popular even among those whose good opinion is not such a great asset, is contagious.
per Cookie, the Bushies sent Bolton to the UN as a way of expressing their contempt towards the UN, and he sure as hell succeeded, but if they had the real courage of their convictions they would have left the seat vacant (or moreso, to stop contributing our share towards it, and send the UN packing) but they didn't and Bolton accomplished nothing there except alienate the US from the rest of the world. I suppose the reason they didn't send it is partly because papa Bush did a fantastic job with the UN during his term, and also papa Bush was also UN rep. and junior wasn't going to tarnish that.
Bolton being right about this is small potatoes, I don't think our being on the council or off it w ... view full comment
per Cookie, the Bushies sent Bolton to the UN as a way of expressing their contempt towards the UN, and he sure as hell succeeded, but if they had the real courage of their convictions they would have left the seat vacant (or moreso, to stop contributing our share towards it, and send the UN packing) but they didn't and Bolton accomplished nothing there except alienate the US from the rest of the world. I suppose the reason they didn't send it is partly because papa Bush did a fantastic job with the UN during his term, and also papa Bush was also UN rep. and junior wasn't going to tarnish that.
Bolton being right about this is small potatoes, I don't think our being on the council or off it will make any real difference.
bl462, that is a good point, still it would be easy to wave that document in front of them and ask them to square it against their own actions, but frankly I don't see that as being likely with this administration since they are on a kick about doing the exact opposite of what the neo-cons did.
"pissants" and "goons"
gw:
Another civilized reminder of how we are ever so much closer to God than they are.
Walton taking the side of Libya, Syria, North Korea. Doesn't really surprise me. If there is a God of course we are closer to him than the dictators of these countries. What lame ass false equivalency. A Human rights council being dominated by the countries that do the most human rights abusing is an assault on human dignity, the only question is do you fight it from the inside or outside, a question that Walnuts himself can't conceive of since was are all existentially leaping about the same.
My mistake was upon scrolling down I say "pissants" and "goons" and my curiosity was piqued.
"pissants" and "goons"
gw:
Another civilized reminder of how we are ever so much closer to God than they are.
Walton taking the side of Libya, Syria, North Korea. Doesn't really surprise me. If there is a God of course we are closer to him than the dictators of these countries. What lame ass false equivalency. A Human rights council being dominated by the countries that do the most human rights abusing is an assault on human dignity, the only question is do you fight it from the inside or outside, a question that Walnuts himself can't conceive of since was are all existentially leaping about the same.
My mistake was upon scrolling down I say "pissants" and "goons" and my curiosity was piqued.
"I am actually a little surprised that China and Russia voted for it "
I am actually surprised that you, or anyone for that matter, is actually a little surprised by the Chinese & Russian behavior.
You presume way too much intellectual honesty on their part. Plus, given their economic & political clout, together with both of their desires to make headway into the Islamic world, why should they vote otherwise? Do either the Chinese or the Russians have any track record of letting "morality" or intellectual honesty get in the way of what they perceive to be their interests? It's sort of like expecting them to agree to sanctions against Iran simply because someone presses a "res ... view full comment
"I am actually a little surprised that China and Russia voted for it "
I am actually surprised that you, or anyone for that matter, is actually a little surprised by the Chinese & Russian behavior.
You presume way too much intellectual honesty on their part. Plus, given their economic & political clout, together with both of their desires to make headway into the Islamic world, why should they vote otherwise? Do either the Chinese or the Russians have any track record of letting "morality" or intellectual honesty get in the way of what they perceive to be their interests? It's sort of like expecting them to agree to sanctions against Iran simply because someone presses a "reset" button and says nice-nice.
BTW, the EUniks (most of them), India and other ostensible "friends" of Israel are no different.
I do hope that Obama wakes up on at least the UNHRC & Susan Rice's pollyannish fantasies about world government and the "international community", but I am skeptical. But I would love to be proven wrong by events, not pilpulistic exegesis purporting to explain Obama's policy moves.
Occasionally though one does find occasional encouraging flashes of intellectually honest insight that cause some people to make 180 degree (or at least > 120 degree) shifts in their previously held views. Jeff Goldberg at The Atlantic until recently was a great fan of HRW & their boss Kenneth Roth, regarding HRW's reports on Israel as Gospel truth. Goldberg's doubts began to surface with the report on the style & substance of HRW's fundraising efforts in Saudi Arabia, earlier this year, and proceeded to get worse with reports on the sorry & sordid history of the individuals who run HRW's middle east section and write those reports.
In yesterday's NY Times, David Bernstein the founder and a long time chairman of HRW (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html) blasts HRW for its rabid anti-Israel bias and publicly joins HRW's critics (although Bernstein doesn't mention them, the foremost critic of HRW is NGO Monitor; see their full report here: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/experts_or_ideologues_systematic_anal...).
In his blog, Goldberg (http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/how_do_you_know_...) cites the OpEd piece as in effect being the straw that broke the camel's back that "confirms [his] worst fears about Ken Roth, the director of Human Rights Watch, and the Middle East division he oversees." Unfortunately, Goldberg doesn't specify exactly what are his worst fears, although one could surmise.
Also unfortunately, Goldberg does not quote at least what I see as the most damning paragraph in Bernstein's piece, and in effect still fails to come to grip with the HRW elephant in the middle of the living room. To wit:
But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws [of war] have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers. Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”.
In other words, the whole basis for HRW's reports, not only in Gaza but in Lebanon and elsewhere, what Roth likes to call HRW's "battle tested methods" is deeply and inherently flawed and totally unreliable. And it's these reports that have informed the attitude toward Israel of the "progressives", especially with regard to the Israel-Arab conflict.
Bernstein appears to realize this. Goldberg might but not have the guts to admit it.
Hershel Ginsburg
Jerusalem / Efrata
P.S. According to Prof. Gerald Steinberg, founder and director of NGO-Monitor, the Goldstone commission made heavy use of the HRW reports on Cast Lead, to the extent that many of the passages in the Goldstone report appear to have been simply copy-pasted from the HRW reports. Goldstone himself was (or may still be) a board member of HRW.
Ginzy, I'm actually a little surprised by your surprise, with regard to China at least. Haven't Israel and China had rather close diplomatic relations over the past 10 years or so, including cooperation on matters of defense procurement and military exchange? Up to an including a U.S.-Israel spat a couple of years ago over Israel sharing defense-technological intel with China that we didn't want you to?
I'm not saying all of that would cause China to vote some other way on the HRC, but it does seem that Israeli-Chinese relations are -- despite your suggestion that they don't let moral considerations or intellectual honesty get in the way of their interests -- rather warmer than those betwee ... view full comment
Ginzy, I'm actually a little surprised by your surprise, with regard to China at least. Haven't Israel and China had rather close diplomatic relations over the past 10 years or so, including cooperation on matters of defense procurement and military exchange? Up to an including a U.S.-Israel spat a couple of years ago over Israel sharing defense-technological intel with China that we didn't want you to?
I'm not saying all of that would cause China to vote some other way on the HRC, but it does seem that Israeli-Chinese relations are -- despite your suggestion that they don't let moral considerations or intellectual honesty get in the way of their interests -- rather warmer than those between Israel and Russia?
ginzy, it has nothing to do with honesty as much as self-preservation. The Chinese have voted against castigating (or abstaining from doing so) even right wing anti-communist regimes oppression because they play up the whole "non interference in the internal affairs" all the time. And the Russians use the same justification for Chechnya. The only reason I see they aren't is because they don't think the Obama administration will call them on it.
ginzy, it has nothing to do with honesty as much as self-preservation. The Chinese have voted against castigating (or abstaining from doing so) even right wing anti-communist regimes oppression because they play up the whole "non interference in the internal affairs" all the time. And the Russians use the same justification for Chechnya. The only reason I see they aren't is because they don't think the Obama administration will call them on it.
Sorry, cookie, but when people say that W's f-p was a "freakin' disaster" what they really mean is that they opposed the invasion of Iraq. Because when you look around the world, our f-p from 2001-09 wasn't too bad.
In Latin America, we supported our firends and mostly ignored Chavez and his ilk, the right course. We saved more lives in Africa that any country ever has, between our programs for AIDS and malaria. Yes, our approval ratings suffered in Old Europe (so what, for all the help they are), but were pretty good in Japan, India and Australia. Non-China Asia still wants us around as a balancer against China.
W was a friend to Israel and an enemy of those who would do it harm. I know ... view full comment
Sorry, cookie, but when people say that W's f-p was a "freakin' disaster" what they really mean is that they opposed the invasion of Iraq. Because when you look around the world, our f-p from 2001-09 wasn't too bad.
In Latin America, we supported our firends and mostly ignored Chavez and his ilk, the right course. We saved more lives in Africa that any country ever has, between our programs for AIDS and malaria. Yes, our approval ratings suffered in Old Europe (so what, for all the help they are), but were pretty good in Japan, India and Australia. Non-China Asia still wants us around as a balancer against China.
W was a friend to Israel and an enemy of those who would do it harm. I know you disagree strongly with the Iraq War, but a disaster? Not hardly.
Israel-Chinese relations are correct (sort of) but not close by any means. The spat you refer to was in the late 1990's I believe was the plan to sell an Israeli AWACS-like plane to China. The AWACS technology was all Israeli developed and made. The USA objected because of tension over Taiwan & so Israel caved in and took a big financial hit.
There may have been another, earlier spat over upgrading or servicing some drones that Israel had sold to China (the USA did not object to the original sale). I am not sure if any unique US technology was involved, and I think Israel was taken aback at the USA's objections, but ultimately caved in.
It is not uncommon for the USA to strong-ar ... view full comment
Israel-Chinese relations are correct (sort of) but not close by any means. The spat you refer to was in the late 1990's I believe was the plan to sell an Israeli AWACS-like plane to China. The AWACS technology was all Israeli developed and made. The USA objected because of tension over Taiwan & so Israel caved in and took a big financial hit.
There may have been another, earlier spat over upgrading or servicing some drones that Israel had sold to China (the USA did not object to the original sale). I am not sure if any unique US technology was involved, and I think Israel was taken aback at the USA's objections, but ultimately caved in.
It is not uncommon for the USA to strong-arm Israel into foregoing certain foreign sales of military hardware that contain no USA technology (or no classified technology) but are strictly the product of "Blue-White" R&D. More than anything else it's a matter of competition with the USA defense industries. Israel is happy to play on a level playing field, but the US defense industries want a clear playing field. Defense exports are critical for Israel in order to amortize the R&D& Production costs over more units.
As far as "close relations" go, Israel is far far closer with India than with China and India also voted for the resolution. The Indians usually explain it by saying that they have to placate their very large Muslim minority. Also the Congress Party (I think they are in power now in India) still fondly remembers its "Non-aligned" heydays under Nehru and is more schizo over India's relationship with Israel. The BJP does not have the same hangups.
Blackie - self preservation is another term for self interest. I don't think neither the Chinese nor the Russians care what Obama says or thinks. See how they responded to the call for Iranian sanctions. As I wrote a long time ago before the elections, Putin & co. are showing themselves quite adept at eating Obama for breakfast. And the Chinese are following suit. Why should they care about, let alone fear, an Obama finger wagging?
hg
butchie, Cookie said neo-cons, and they were a disaster. Not everyone on the Bush team was a neo-con. Powell, Gates, Rice, etc. are hardly neo-cons.
butchie, Cookie said neo-cons, and they were a disaster. Not everyone on the Bush team was a neo-con. Powell, Gates, Rice, etc. are hardly neo-cons.
ginzy: "As far as "close relations" go, Israel is far far closer with India than with China and India also voted for the resolution. The Indians usually explain it by saying that they have to placate their very large Muslim minority. Also the Congress Party (I think they are in power now in India) still fondly remembers its "Non-aligned" heydays under Nehru and is more schizo over India's relationship with Israel. The BJP does not have the same hangups."
That's a good point. I saw India listed and was a bit surprised, but that seems a very likely explanation.
ginzy: "As far as "close relations" go, Israel is far far closer with India than with China and India also voted for the resolution. The Indians usually explain it by saying that they have to placate their very large Muslim minority. Also the Congress Party (I think they are in power now in India) still fondly remembers its "Non-aligned" heydays under Nehru and is more schizo over India's relationship with Israel. The BJP does not have the same hangups."
That's a good point. I saw India listed and was a bit surprised, but that seems a very likely explanation.
When it comes to voting against Israel in international fora, NOTHING surprises me. That is why I don't attribute any moral authority to the "International Community", "global tests", International Law, and other such nonsense.
hg
When it comes to voting against Israel in international fora, NOTHING surprises me. That is why I don't attribute any moral authority to the "International Community", "global tests", International Law, and other such nonsense.
hg
I am no longer willing to confer the degrees of innocence that ' absurd ' implies with reference to George Walton. His unfailing consistency regarding all things anti-jewish reveal a purposed poseur. The focus and locus of his ire exposed in the guise of a 'fair fight' clause in the formulation of justice as if the size of the stick contains all determinant moral value.
George. I ascribe you a bigot and coward.
I am no longer willing to confer the degrees of innocence that ' absurd ' implies with reference to George Walton. His unfailing consistency regarding all things anti-jewish reveal a purposed poseur. The focus and locus of his ire exposed in the guise of a 'fair fight' clause in the formulation of justice as if the size of the stick contains all determinant moral value.
George. I ascribe you a bigot and coward.
It occurs to me that China/Russia can vote for the Goldstone toilet paper at the UNHRC in the full and cynical confidence that, no matter how medieval they go on the Chechnyans or the Uighurs or their next minority/neighbor, they positively definitely never, ever have to worry about Security Council sanctions on that or any matter since they have a veto there.
It occurs to me that China/Russia can vote for the Goldstone toilet paper at the UNHRC in the full and cynical confidence that, no matter how medieval they go on the Chechnyans or the Uighurs or their next minority/neighbor, they positively definitely never, ever have to worry about Security Council sanctions on that or any matter since they have a veto there.
In other words, a permanent Security Council seat is like having a permanent "immunity idol".
In other words, a permanent Security Council seat is like having a permanent "immunity idol".
blackton:
Walton taking the side of Libya, Syria, North Korea. Doesn't really surprise me.
george:
Cite the passage where I take the side of Libya, Syria or North Korea. No, my complaint is how any and all advocates of The Whole Truth have savaged the lives of hundreds of millions of folks throughout human history.
And that includes the God of the Muslims, Christians and Jews. The very same God, of course. Which just exposes the utter credulity of minds that believe in Him. And I used to be one of them. So I know how hard it is to abandon comforting fairy tales.
And you know my point revolves more around the manner in which you are quick to clump everyone in the world into the Good and Evil car ... view full comment
blackton:
Walton taking the side of Libya, Syria, North Korea. Doesn't really surprise me.
george:
Cite the passage where I take the side of Libya, Syria or North Korea. No, my complaint is how any and all advocates of The Whole Truth have savaged the lives of hundreds of millions of folks throughout human history.
And that includes the God of the Muslims, Christians and Jews. The very same God, of course. Which just exposes the utter credulity of minds that believe in Him. And I used to be one of them. So I know how hard it is to abandon comforting fairy tales.
And you know my point revolves more around the manner in which you are quick to clump everyone in the world into the Good and Evil caricature often found in most Scripture. And if they are Evil, God [your God...all Gods] help them.
I don't deny the "human rights commission" consists of many hypocritical frauds. I simply point out that in their own way the worlds's democracies are steeped in the hypocrisies of their own vicious frauds.
Would you care to discuss that in some depth?
Let's start with those kids slaughtered in Gaza. Or you pick square one. Because whether you are discussing the U.S., Israel, Gaza, Syria or Iran, you always get back to it. The Big Lies that governments accummulate in order to carry out their dastardly deeds. The only difference is we would expect it from Syria, Iran and North Korea....right?
george
jacko:
I am no longer willing to confer the degrees of innocence that ' absurd ' implies with reference to George Walton. His unfailing consistency regarding all things anti-jewish reveal a purposed poseur.
george:
Cite points I raised previously which demonstrate conclusively I am "anti-Jewish".
But first, as with others, I ask you to respond to this in the context of a previous post of mine:
1]
delineate in some detail what being an "anti-Jew" is.
2]
note how close or how far this description comes from your own moral and politcal values respecting, say, Zionism.....are criticisms of Israel's historical birth and maturation in that part of the world analogous to anti-Semitism?
3]
demonstrate how y ... view full comment
jacko:
I am no longer willing to confer the degrees of innocence that ' absurd ' implies with reference to George Walton. His unfailing consistency regarding all things anti-jewish reveal a purposed poseur.
george:
Cite points I raised previously which demonstrate conclusively I am "anti-Jewish".
But first, as with others, I ask you to respond to this in the context of a previous post of mine:
1]
delineate in some detail what being an "anti-Jew" is.
2]
note how close or how far this description comes from your own moral and politcal values respecting, say, Zionism.....are criticisms of Israel's historical birth and maturation in that part of the world analogous to anti-Semitism?
3]
demonstrate how your assessment of an "anti-Jew" and your values are not mere personal prejudices but reflect the sort of conclusions any rational man or woman would come to if given all the facts
In a comment on Damon Linker's post regarding Norman Podhoretz's book, "Why Are Jews Liberals?" I made the following observation:
Instead of trying to peel back layers of the existential onion that is the ultimate mystery of human identity...instead of ever disassembling, assembling and reassembling all of the unique, personal, individual experiences and relationships that had nudged [or outright shoved] them into embracing one set of values rather than another another...many who ponder what "being a Jew" [or "being an anti-Jew"] means start at the shallowest end of the identity pool instead. Norman Podhoretz wasn't born a Jew in a sense that he was destined to BE a Jew....destined to think, feel and behave in a particular way because this is what being a Jew MEANS. No, he was raised in a particular family, in a particular community that came of age at a particular historical and cultural juncture. He had particular experiences and relationships. Had he been raised by a very different family, in a very different community at a very different historical and cultural juncture...or had very different experiences and relationships...would he be the man he is today, sharing the same moral and political values, subscribing to the same sense of what it means to "be a Jew"?
And part and parcel of this, of course, we must then ask: is there a way to know essentially what being a Jew means? Because this would seem to be crucial in identifying those who are "anti-Jews"
The Norman Podhoretzes of the world [of all moral, political and religious inclinations] come to an existential juncture [that others simply do not] where he has convinced himself that questions like this can be answered with a fierce certainty. Not only that, but with a certainty such that, if you can answer them, you have than answered in turn what one must think, believe and do as a true Jew.
Or as you ascribe to my own cowardly, bigoted mien, what one must think, believe and do as an anti-Jew.
So, would you like to have an actual intelligent discussion about this here and now? No polemics, no ad hominems, no personal attacks. Just an honest exchange of opionions about identity and political convictions and ethics and God.
Oh and the narratives of those with the political and economic power to enforce them.
george walton
george walton
iambigoted: I am going to spare you the sort of tedious and pompous posts of which you are so fond. I am going to save you the trouble of having to defend/question your own identity and provide and answer for you. You are the sort of person who loves to offend by asking people distracting, beside-the-point questions about Zionism, Jewish identity, and Israel that have so far elicited nothing but offense. You clearly intend to offend because most of your little "intellectual exercises" asking posters here to define themselves elicit nothing but annoyance and anger. Because you refuse to try to find another way of communicating, a way that would truly engage, one must assume that you enjo ... view full comment
iambigoted: I am going to spare you the sort of tedious and pompous posts of which you are so fond. I am going to save you the trouble of having to defend/question your own identity and provide and answer for you. You are the sort of person who loves to offend by asking people distracting, beside-the-point questions about Zionism, Jewish identity, and Israel that have so far elicited nothing but offense. You clearly intend to offend because most of your little "intellectual exercises" asking posters here to define themselves elicit nothing but annoyance and anger. Because you refuse to try to find another way of communicating, a way that would truly engage, one must assume that you enjoy baiting us. That or you are simply suffering from a sick compulsion. You are quite plain and simple (emphasis on simple) a Jew baiter. Nothing more, nothing less. Not much any of us need question.
george does not anger me.
He fancies himself quite the court jester
whereas in fact he is an illiterate loiterer,
a venomed guts-griping minnow,
an errant tardy-gaited bladder,
without so much brain as ear wax
In short, an insufferable putz.
george does not anger me.
He fancies himself quite the court jester
whereas in fact he is an illiterate loiterer,
a venomed guts-griping minnow,
an errant tardy-gaited bladder,
without so much brain as ear wax
In short, an insufferable putz.
"US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice is among the many statesmen who have come to Jerusalem to attend the conference, including top international figures in the fields of economics, policy, and technology.
Prior to the kick off of the conference, Peres had a work meeting with Ambassador Rice. Peres' office reported that Rice reiterated to the president the United States' commitment to Israel's security and its existence as a Jewish and democratic state.
During their meeting, Peres attacked the Goldstone report saying that "it is an outrage that a respectable institution such as the UN has acted as a stage for a series of baseless, anti-Israel lies and stories."
According to Peres' office, Rice s ... view full comment
"US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice is among the many statesmen who have come to Jerusalem to attend the conference, including top international figures in the fields of economics, policy, and technology.
Prior to the kick off of the conference, Peres had a work meeting with Ambassador Rice. Peres' office reported that Rice reiterated to the president the United States' commitment to Israel's security and its existence as a Jewish and democratic state.
During their meeting, Peres attacked the Goldstone report saying that "it is an outrage that a respectable institution such as the UN has acted as a stage for a series of baseless, anti-Israel lies and stories."
According to Peres' office, Rice said in response that the US promise to stand by Israel's side as a loyal friend, also in its fight against the Goldstone report. "
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3793021,00.html
molly:
You are the sort of person who loves to offend by asking people distracting, beside-the-point questions about Zionism, Jewish identity, and Israel that have so far elicited nothing but offense.
george:
If you think examining [intelligently] the manner in which we come to understand the world around us...from the cradle to the grave...is an offensive distraction then nothing I say will change your mind.
But then if you have any intellectual curiosity at all you know how a point of view like this is complete bullshit.
Why don't you examine your own existential trajectory here. Show us how, even if you had been born in very different circumstantial and demographic contexts you still wo ... view full comment
molly:
You are the sort of person who loves to offend by asking people distracting, beside-the-point questions about Zionism, Jewish identity, and Israel that have so far elicited nothing but offense.
george:
If you think examining [intelligently] the manner in which we come to understand the world around us...from the cradle to the grave...is an offensive distraction then nothing I say will change your mind.
But then if you have any intellectual curiosity at all you know how a point of view like this is complete bullshit.
Why don't you examine your own existential trajectory here. Show us how, even if you had been born in very different circumstantial and demographic contexts you still would have come to precisely the same opinions about these things.
That's my point isn't it: demonstrate how the conjunction encompassing your assessment here and your values are not mere personal prejudices but reflect the sort of conclusions any rational man or woman would come to if given all the facts.
What in the world are all of you so frightened about when confronted with an existential perspective on human identity?
What I do is translate reactions to me here into philosophy venues where discussions of identity, power, deontology, theodicy, political economy, death and the limitations of language [irony] are actually common variables in exploring the nature of our thoughts, feelings and behaviors.
Indeed, I have never not been upfront about that. It is always one or another Whole Truth embraced by one or another True Believer that fascinates me far more than the "content" of particular opinions. You should spend more time examining what philosophy calls "epistemology". Epistemology is concerned far less with what we think we know is true and far more with what can or cannot be known instead. In particular with respect to moral and political values.
In fact, it is what you think you know about me that confirms my worst fears about how so many folks go about grappling with "the news". An inch deep doesn't come close to describing it for some of them. But, sure: If it helps to see me as some sort of sinister [or as irony suggested "odd and suspicious"] sort, by all means embrace that.
george walton
d/a
I ain't dancin, georgie. I stand with my conclusions. I do agree with a bit of your gist. You are possessed of a provisional truth.
I ain't dancin, georgie. I stand with my conclusions. I do agree with a bit of your gist. You are possessed of a provisional truth.
jacko,
Then you are just another whiner. You bitch and moan about the arguments I make and then don't have the intellectual balls to actually confront them head on.
Just write me off as an insufferable putz and, uh, be done with it.
g
jacko,
Then you are just another whiner. You bitch and moan about the arguments I make and then don't have the intellectual balls to actually confront them head on.
Just write me off as an insufferable putz and, uh, be done with it.
g
There he goes again. George completely ignores my post and as usual dumps the same swill. George: Nobody's interested. We are not threatened or incurious. Of course, telling himself that we are is very convenient, leaving him little reason to question himself and why he continues to drop stink bombs when nobody cares. Perhaps George should put himself under the microscope. Or maybe he shouldn't!
There he goes again. George completely ignores my post and as usual dumps the same swill. George: Nobody's interested. We are not threatened or incurious. Of course, telling himself that we are is very convenient, leaving him little reason to question himself and why he continues to drop stink bombs when nobody cares. Perhaps George should put himself under the microscope. Or maybe he shouldn't!
"There he goes again. George completely ignores my post .."
Molly - So why not take a tip from the master and ignore his posts? I do (almost always). Even when he baits me (and that assumes that what he is writing is coherent, which is often not the case).
BTW, welcome back ... I also have taken a bit of a break, although I doubt that I'll be coattail blogging as much as I have in the past. As someone here once noted (and I wish I remember who), life intrudes.
hg
"There he goes again. George completely ignores my post .."
Molly - So why not take a tip from the master and ignore his posts? I do (almost always). Even when he baits me (and that assumes that what he is writing is coherent, which is often not the case).
BTW, welcome back ... I also have taken a bit of a break, although I doubt that I'll be coattail blogging as much as I have in the past. As someone here once noted (and I wish I remember who), life intrudes.
hg
molly:
George completely ignores my post and as usual dumps the same swill. George: Nobody's interested. We are not threatened or incurious.
george:
Well, I stand corrected then.
On the other hand, why do you feel incurious about the relationship between what you think you know now and how you came to know this? Is there a way in which you can defend your point of view that transcends all the existential variables that came together, predisposing you to embrace one set of moral and political assumptions rather than another?
I Ignored your post? How is your post not but a series of ad hominems, a frenetic screed filled with the usual invective aimed at me personally rather than the points I raise ... view full comment
molly:
George completely ignores my post and as usual dumps the same swill. George: Nobody's interested. We are not threatened or incurious.
george:
Well, I stand corrected then.
On the other hand, why do you feel incurious about the relationship between what you think you know now and how you came to know this? Is there a way in which you can defend your point of view that transcends all the existential variables that came together, predisposing you to embrace one set of moral and political assumptions rather than another?
I Ignored your post? How is your post not but a series of ad hominems, a frenetic screed filled with the usual invective aimed at me personally rather than the points I raise about identity and values? What exactly did I miss?
george
d/a
Ginzy,
Come on, I ask you straight forward questions about how you came to acquire your views about Israel and Zionism; about what it means to be a "true Jew" and an "anti-Semitic". About how we come to internalize so many widely divergent perspectives on such crucial aspects of our lives.
Bait?
The Spine is bursting at the seams with True Believers. All I do is probe the relationship between belief, knowledge, identity, values and enculturation. About the inherent limitations of religious and political language.
You pass up so many splendid opportunities to expose my own misconception about these things.
What have you really got to lose though? Aside from your own?
george
Ginzy,
Come on, I ask you straight forward questions about how you came to acquire your views about Israel and Zionism; about what it means to be a "true Jew" and an "anti-Semitic". About how we come to internalize so many widely divergent perspectives on such crucial aspects of our lives.
Bait?
The Spine is bursting at the seams with True Believers. All I do is probe the relationship between belief, knowledge, identity, values and enculturation. About the inherent limitations of religious and political language.
You pass up so many splendid opportunities to expose my own misconception about these things.
What have you really got to lose though? Aside from your own?
george
Ginzy: Hi to you. Glad you're back.
George: What I wrote is not a screed or an ad hominem attack. I didn't call you the names that ran through my head (like asshole or fuckwad). I merely described your MO.
Furthermore, I am not, to use a word you borrowed from me, incurious. I simply don't wish to discuss these matters with someone who really has no interest in anybody else. If you did, you would take another tone and tack. Now I've said this three different ways. I'm done with you. Should have been a long time ago.
Ginzy: Hi to you. Glad you're back.
George: What I wrote is not a screed or an ad hominem attack. I didn't call you the names that ran through my head (like asshole or fuckwad). I merely described your MO.
Furthermore, I am not, to use a word you borrowed from me, incurious. I simply don't wish to discuss these matters with someone who really has no interest in anybody else. If you did, you would take another tone and tack. Now I've said this three different ways. I'm done with you. Should have been a long time ago.
molly:
George: What I wrote is not a screed or an ad hominem attack. I didn't call you the names that ran through my head (like asshole or fuckwad). I merely described your MO.
george:
Well, from my end, it sure sounded like asshole and fuckwad. Or maybe after the vicious [and repeated] personal attacks from folks like noga and blackton and jd and bulbman and liberal reformer it all starts to just blur together inside my head.
I reread your post above and I think you are right and I was wrong. It was nothing like their screeds. I apologize.
molly:
Furthermore, I am not, to use a word you borrowed from me, incurious. I simply don't wish to discuss these matters with someone who really has no inte ... view full comment
molly:
George: What I wrote is not a screed or an ad hominem attack. I didn't call you the names that ran through my head (like asshole or fuckwad). I merely described your MO.
george:
Well, from my end, it sure sounded like asshole and fuckwad. Or maybe after the vicious [and repeated] personal attacks from folks like noga and blackton and jd and bulbman and liberal reformer it all starts to just blur together inside my head.
I reread your post above and I think you are right and I was wrong. It was nothing like their screeds. I apologize.
molly:
Furthermore, I am not, to use a word you borrowed from me, incurious. I simply don't wish to discuss these matters with someone who really has no interest in anybody else. If you did, you would take another tone and tack. Now I've said this three different ways. I'm done with you. Should have been a long time ago.
george:
Okay, I see your point more clearly with respect to this as well. I will be glad to dispense with the polemics and discuss these things both civilly and seriously.
For example, I don't see my posts as "jew-baiting". I react instead to what I construe to be the perspective of True Believers. In fact, in philosophy venues I react in exactly the same way to Objectivists, Marxists, Christians, Muslims, Libertarians, Capitalists, Socialists, Liberals, Conservatives....to realists and idealists and rationalists and deontologists and objectivists and essentialists. If I bump into people who approach religion or philosophy or politics or ethnicity or ideology or race or gender or nationality from the perspective of Good/Evil, Right/Wrong, I react as an existentialist.
After all, that is the fundamental rationale beyond my posting: to explore the intersection between existential philosophy, "the news", human psychology, dasein, language, political economy and values.
If this were a blog frequented by pro-Palestinian Muslims I would respond in the very same way. In fierce opposition to the "we can do no wrong" mentality of all True Believers.
george walton
d/a
To those writing about J Street, I think it's naive to assume that politicians act on principle. If J Street had more money, more politicians would attend their confabs. If that weren't true, by now we'd have stronger banking regulations and a public option. That's just the way it is in Washington.
Not that I agree with J Street. It's hard to take a group seriously when they have the deluded and dishonest Stephen Walt on board. I agree with the reader above, that I wish there was a decent alternative to AIPAC, but it ain't J Street.
To those writing about J Street, I think it's naive to assume that politicians act on principle. If J Street had more money, more politicians would attend their confabs. If that weren't true, by now we'd have stronger banking regulations and a public option. That's just the way it is in Washington.
Not that I agree with J Street. It's hard to take a group seriously when they have the deluded and dishonest Stephen Walt on board. I agree with the reader above, that I wish there was a decent alternative to AIPAC, but it ain't J Street.
"Well, from my end, it sure sounded like asshole and fuckwad. Or maybe after the vicious [and repeated] personal attacks from folks like noga and blackton and jd and bulbman and liberal reformer it all starts to just blur together inside my head."
Poor little persecuted antisemite.
They have disgraced me, and hindered me half a million;
laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, cooled my friends,
heated mine enemies; and what's their reason?
I am an antisemite! Hath not an antisemite eyes?
hath not an antisemite hands, organs, dimensions,
senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food,
hurt with the same weapons? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tick ... view full comment
"Well, from my end, it sure sounded like asshole and fuckwad. Or maybe after the vicious [and repeated] personal attacks from folks like noga and blackton and jd and bulbman and liberal reformer it all starts to just blur together inside my head."
Poor little persecuted antisemite.
They have disgraced me, and hindered me half a million;
laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, cooled my friends,
heated mine enemies; and what's their reason?
I am an antisemite! Hath not an antisemite eyes?
hath not an antisemite hands, organs, dimensions,
senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food,
hurt with the same weapons? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFb8rj5L6JA&feature=related
george sayeth: jacko,
Then you are just another whiner. You bitch and moan about the arguments I make and then don't have the intellectual balls to actually confront them head on.
jacko sayeth: Ain't no bitchin and moanin goin on round here. You imagine as much perhaps. I'm simply making a claim. You're running pretty hard on this one. Maybe got busted, neh? I'm not interested in helping you crawl out the other side via convolution and obfuscation.
george sayeth: jacko,
Then you are just another whiner. You bitch and moan about the arguments I make and then don't have the intellectual balls to actually confront them head on.
jacko sayeth: Ain't no bitchin and moanin goin on round here. You imagine as much perhaps. I'm simply making a claim. You're running pretty hard on this one. Maybe got busted, neh? I'm not interested in helping you crawl out the other side via convolution and obfuscation.
jacko sayeth: Ain't no bitchin and moanin goin on round here.
george:
Well, again I stand corrected. And I will admit that to the best of my knowledge you never gone bawling to Marty begging him to create a device that will make my arguments disappear behind the ignore screen.
But then you do avoid my points simply by labeling them convoluted and obscure.
You'd last about, oh, 10 minutes in a philosophy venue.
So, by all means, stay in the sandbox; in the wading pool with all the minnows.
; o )
gw
jacko sayeth: Ain't no bitchin and moanin goin on round here.
george:
Well, again I stand corrected. And I will admit that to the best of my knowledge you never gone bawling to Marty begging him to create a device that will make my arguments disappear behind the ignore screen.
But then you do avoid my points simply by labeling them convoluted and obscure.
You'd last about, oh, 10 minutes in a philosophy venue.
So, by all means, stay in the sandbox; in the wading pool with all the minnows.
; o )
gw
"... with all the minnows."
george is a learning robot.
"... with all the minnows."
george is a learning robot.
Molly,
J Street is not short on money. Quite the contrary. They are George Sorros' baby.
For some other reasons to question J Street's ideology & motivation see Lenny Ben David's latest blog piece (for which he is now at the receiving ends of physical threats from "enlightened" and "peace-loving" lefties) here, http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/showdown-on-j-street/ and while you are at it, Gil Troy's observations and unanswered questions here, view full comment
Molly,
J Street is not short on money. Quite the contrary. They are George Sorros' baby.
For some other reasons to question J Street's ideology & motivation see Lenny Ben David's latest blog piece (for which he is now at the receiving ends of physical threats from "enlightened" and "peace-loving" lefties) here, http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/showdown-on-j-street/ and while you are at it, Gil Troy's observations and unanswered questions here, http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/troy/entry/an_open_letter_in_response .
True, J Street claims they are "pro-Israel". In fact they claim that over and over, more than any other organization of which I am aware.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
hg
george sayeth: You'd last about, oh, 10 minutes in a philosophy venue.
So, by all means, stay in the sandbox; in the wading pool with all the minnows.
jacko sayeth: Well georgie, I reckon you're just a natural borne' flying machine. At least you have half the battle accomplished by virtue of such intimate self knowledge.
And now for his next airborne turd .... Man those suckers do have wings in this most elementary ancient endeavor. Next he learns to wash his hands. Those vines are easier to hang on to. Give it a try. You'll be amazed. Won't we all?!
george sayeth: You'd last about, oh, 10 minutes in a philosophy venue.
So, by all means, stay in the sandbox; in the wading pool with all the minnows.
jacko sayeth: Well georgie, I reckon you're just a natural borne' flying machine. At least you have half the battle accomplished by virtue of such intimate self knowledge.
And now for his next airborne turd .... Man those suckers do have wings in this most elementary ancient endeavor. Next he learns to wash his hands. Those vines are easier to hang on to. Give it a try. You'll be amazed. Won't we all?!
ginzy, I'd point out that the blog is on pajamasmedia.com, where the leading lights of recent postings are the slightly nutty but mainly just asinine Victor Davis Hanson, the somewhat nuttier Roger Simon, and the whang-doodle-three-times-around-the-mulberry-bush-nutjob Roger Kimball (read his conspiracy-theory piece on climate change! whew!), To name just three.
The mere site of a statement doesn't invalidate the content of that statement, agreed, but I think that for most intelligent people (conservatively or liberally-inclined) who aren't also nutty, Ben David's company doesn't bring his intervention any great benefit.
ginzy, I'd point out that the blog is on pajamasmedia.com, where the leading lights of recent postings are the slightly nutty but mainly just asinine Victor Davis Hanson, the somewhat nuttier Roger Simon, and the whang-doodle-three-times-around-the-mulberry-bush-nutjob Roger Kimball (read his conspiracy-theory piece on climate change! whew!), To name just three.
The mere site of a statement doesn't invalidate the content of that statement, agreed, but I think that for most intelligent people (conservatively or liberally-inclined) who aren't also nutty, Ben David's company doesn't bring his intervention any great benefit.
I meant to add that Gil Troy's piece is, in contrast, very effectively done.
I meant to add that Gil Troy's piece is, in contrast, very effectively done.
"...but I think that for most intelligent people (conservatively or liberally-inclined) who aren't also nutty, Ben David's company doesn't bring his intervention any great benefit."
Hmmm. Prof. Norm Geras had a piece or two on Pajamas Media. We all know how nutty and asinine he is, don't we? And this "judgment" coming from someone who could barely contain his ire when a his favoured rag "The Nation", home to Stephen M. Walt, was criticized... You are sitting in a glasshouse, Mr. I.
"...but I think that for most intelligent people (conservatively or liberally-inclined) who aren't also nutty, Ben David's company doesn't bring his intervention any great benefit."
Hmmm. Prof. Norm Geras had a piece or two on Pajamas Media. We all know how nutty and asinine he is, don't we? And this "judgment" coming from someone who could barely contain his ire when a his favoured rag "The Nation", home to Stephen M. Walt, was criticized... You are sitting in a glasshouse, Mr. I.